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

Scarless Healing

Recommended Posts

I would like to see her as a millionaire but not like this:

http://educationalst...acle/#more-1224

Renovo attempted to commercialise the scientific research that Ferguson had carried out at the University of Manchester. It grew rapidly from a small private company in 2000 to a publicly traded company with over 200 staff, claiming possession of “the most advanced regenerative medicine in the world”. It received large sums of money, including £63 million of investors’ money, £58 million of investment from the pharmaceutical company Shire,along with £16.5 million of British tax-payers money in the form of grants and research tax credits.

The Clinical Trials

Juvista succeeded in early phase one and two clinical trials for efficacy but in 2007 a phase two trial testing it to heal scars after mole removal was a failure (Renovo 2007, p10). A 2008 phase two clinical trial using Juvista to heal scars after breast augmentation surgery also failed as differences between the treated scars and the placebo were not significant (Renovo 2008, p7). Juvista did succeed in trials concerning patient safety and Ferguson assured investors that the failed trials were down to the use of “sub-optimal doses” and “a sub-optimal trial design involving scars of different lengths and anatomical locations“ (Renovo 2009, p7).

Zesteem was another product designed to accelerate wound healing. It made some progress in early trials, but in 2008 Renovo’s phase three clinical trial for Zesteem failed to meet its primary endpoint for efficacy and all development on it was terminated (Renovo 2008, p8).

Judivex was a treatment that hoped to improve scarring and accelerate re-epithelialisation. However, in 2009, the phase two clinical trial for Judivex failed as the treatment showed no demonstration of a statistically significant difference in the time to complete wound closure (Renovo 2009, p8).

Another drug, Adaprev was also developed. Renovo hypothesised that this injectable formulation would prevent scarring and improve function following surgical repair of lacerated tendons. The trial results were announced in November 2011 and showed that patients treated with Adaprev had less range of motion than those in the standard care group (Renovo 2011, p2). The development of the drug was cancelled.

Prevascar aimed to prevent scarring and restore function after peripheral nerve injury and was in the early phase of trials (Renovo 2006, p9). The trial results were announced on 16 April 2012: the drug failed badly as by month thirteen there was a small but significant improvement in the placebo scar width when compared to the treatment scar.

The Sales Pitch

Renovo never produced a single marketable product, never generated any product revenue and failed in its commercialisation of Ferguson’s alligator research. Indeed, it burned over £100 million of private and state investment. Driving this process was a constant sales pitch about the potential money to be made.

The Winners

Between 2006 and 2011 the total paid to Renovo’s board of directors (including termination payments) was over £11 million (Renovo 2006 to 2011). Mark Ferguson was the highest earner with a total of £3.6 million over the five years. This included bonuses of £971,000 and a payment of £700,000 that was made in June 2011 when his contract as chief executive officer was terminated (Renovo 2011, p17). Renovo also paid an additional total amount of £451,118 into his pension fund over the five years (Renovo 2006 to 2011).

Sharon O’Kane earned a total of £1.6 million over her four years at the company (Renovo 2006 to 2011). This included a post-cessation payment of £200,488 on her resignation as chief scientific officer in February 2010 (Renovo 2010, p36).

In 2007, Ferguson and O’Kane also made huge gains by exercising Renovo share options. On 26 June, under the directors share option scheme, Ferguson and O’Kane acquired over 4.7 million Renovo shares for .004 pence per share (Renovo 2007, p35). They then sold them on to investors at the market price of £2 per share on 2 July (Renovo, 2007). The company had announced the Shire licensing deal on 20 June 2007 and the shares were at their zenith. In a single trade, Ferguson was enriched by £5.9 million and O’Kane by £3.5 million.

The aggregate scale of the directors’ pay and the share rewards is remarkable in light of the fact that Renovo never successfully commercialised a product from any of the drug developments.

So all in all Mark Ferguson and his wife have earned about £16 million in five years.

Edited by Vladislav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im so tired of bullshit, i cant undertand why is so difficult put on sale a hydrogel...i hope there are no scam like juvista...its just a hydrogel, my god, why so problems, so time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why all the BS.

If someone could contact Gerecht in a professional manner we would know more and maybe get more involved.

I would be great to have a genuine scientist on this topic.

Anyway this forum is so large it could use a psychologist, a dermatologist, a skin surgeon etc.

If I where a student in one of these, i would use this topix just to help some folk, inform even as a training.

Kind of sick of all this waiting. I hope Recell brings some great results or else the coming years is going to be hel.

I would be happy to wait another 3 years if I knew for certain it would work. The results seem to be al put on a single mouse.

I hope the mouse is happy with his results and feels confident now. smile.png

Maybe the mouse suddenly exploded after a month.

Edited by WinnieTheBlue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the cited info in that blog I think its reasonable for the blogger to state Renovo looks suspiciously like a scam.

I noted something wasn't right three years ago, when I noticed the result of the phase two trial was seriously poor and there were treatments already out that were better. But because people were mesmerised by the authority and blindly appealed to the authority in a cult like hypnotic state there was no point in debating with a cult.

Juvista was an injection (an injection of anything will never bring scar free healing, your body can only bring scar free healing) that imo was pushed by someone in a white coat, explaining "detailed theory over results" when it should be results over detailed theory, and claiming authority that people blindly followed even after the phase two trials fell flat on their ass.

Scaffolds are not injections. All they do is get digested by the whiteblood cells near the tissue, after they are digested the body does the healing automatically, based on the speed of of its digestion. eg. slow digestion, or rejection of the scaffold brings scar. Fast digestion brings reepithilisation and regeneration.

Edited by seabs135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now I know what do you people mean when you say 'scam', I know it because I see that Ferguson and his wife exercised their stock options on 2 July 2007 - just a few days after they have bought it, they didn't want to wait - if the phase II and III trials were sucessfull then their stocks would be worth even more, then they could earn £15 or £20 million or something like that - but they didn't want to hold it until phase II i III clinical trial results were announced, they knew that stock price was at its peak at that moment right after the deal with Shire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avita Recell is doing a huge research on burn / hypertrophic / dyspigmented scars.

I have no idea when the results will be published, it could take up to 6 months.

If it is proven effective, this could be the best treatment available today.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20120516/Avita-commences-enrollment-in-ReCell-study-for-hypertrophic-dyspigmented-scars.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting news from RXi Pharmaceuticals, a company founded by Craig Mello - Nobel Prize winner for medicine in 2006 for his discovery of RNAi gene-silencing technology, their drug that is called RXi-109 is an inhibitor of CTGF protein (I guess it is similar to EXC-001 and Excaliard Pharmaceuticals), I hope it is not a scam like Renovo and Juvista

May 31, 2012

RXi Pharmaceuticals Receives FDA Clearance to Begin Clinical Trial with RXI-109

http://www.rxipharma.com/2012/05/3931/

June 26, 2012

RXi Pharmaceuticals Announces Initiation of First Clinical Trial

http://www.rxipharma...clinical-trial/

About RXi Pharmaceuticals

RXi Pharmaceuticals Corporation (OTCBB:RXII) is a biotechnology company focused on discovering, developing and commercializing innovative therapies based on its proprietary, next-generation RNAi platform. Therapeutics that use RNA interference, or “RNAi,” have great promise because of their ability to “silence,” or down-regulate, the expression of a specific gene that may be overexpressed in a disease condition. Building on the pioneering work of scientific founder and Nobel Laureate Dr. Craig Mello, RXi’s first RNAi product candidate, RXI-109, which targets CTGF (connective tissue growth factor), will commence human clinical trials in anti-scarring in 2012.

Craig C. Mello, Ph.D., Founder and Scientific Advisory Board Chairman

Dr. Mello has served as the Chairman of our Scientific Advisory Board since February 2007. Dr. Mello, co-recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Medicine for RNAi, co-discovered RNAi and co-invented RNAi therapeutics. Dr. Mello is the Blais University Chair in Molecular Medicine at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, a Howard Hughes Investigator and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. In 2006, he was named the inaugural recipient of The Dr. Paul Janssen Award for Biomedical Research by Johnson & Johnson and was the co-recipient of the Paul Ehrlich and Ludwig Darmstaedter Prize. Dr. Mello was also the co-recipient of the National Academy of Sciences’ Award in Molecular Biology and the Wiley Prize in the Biomedical Sciences from Rockefeller University in 2003. He was a postdoctoral fellow at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and in 1995, was named a Pew Scholar in the Biomedical Sciences. Dr. Mello received his B.S. in Biochemistry from Brown University in 1982 and his Ph.D. in Cellular and Developmental Biology from Harvard University in 1990.

Edited by Vladislav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting news from RXi Pharmaceuticals, a company founded by Craig Mello - Nobel Prize winner for medicine in 2006 for his discovery of RNAi gene-silencing technology, their drug that is called RXi-109 is an inhibitor of CTGF protein (I guess it is similar to EXC-001 and Excaliard Pharmaceuticals), I hope it is not a scam like Renovo and Juvista

May 31, 2012

RXi Pharmaceuticals Receives FDA Clearance to Begin Clinical Trial with RXI-109

http://www.rxipharma.com/2012/05/3931/

June 26, 2012

RXi Pharmaceuticals Announces Initiation of First Clinical Trial

http://www.rxipharma...clinical-trial/

About RXi Pharmaceuticals

RXi Pharmaceuticals Corporation (OTCBB:RXII) is a biotechnology company focused on discovering, developing and commercializing innovative therapies based on its proprietary, next-generation RNAi platform. Therapeutics that use RNA interference, or “RNAi,” have great promise because of their ability to “silence,” or down-regulate, the expression of a specific gene that may be overexpressed in a disease condition. Building on the pioneering work of scientific founder and Nobel Laureate Dr. Craig Mello, RXi’s first RNAi product candidate, RXI-109, which targets CTGF (connective tissue growth factor), will commence human clinical trials in anti-scarring in 2012.

Craig C. Mello, Ph.D., Founder and Scientific Advisory Board Chairman

Dr. Mello has served as the Chairman of our Scientific Advisory Board since February 2007. Dr. Mello, co-recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Medicine for RNAi, co-discovered RNAi and co-invented RNAi therapeutics. Dr. Mello is the Blais University Chair in Molecular Medicine at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, a Howard Hughes Investigator and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. In 2006, he was named the inaugural recipient of The Dr. Paul Janssen Award for Biomedical Research by Johnson & Johnson and was the co-recipient of the Paul Ehrlich and Ludwig Darmstaedter Prize. Dr. Mello was also the co-recipient of the National Academy of Sciences’ Award in Molecular Biology and the Wiley Prize in the Biomedical Sciences from Rockefeller University in 2003. He was a postdoctoral fellow at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and in 1995, was named a Pew Scholar in the Biomedical Sciences. Dr. Mello received his B.S. in Biochemistry from Brown University in 1982 and his Ph.D. in Cellular and Developmental Biology from Harvard University in 1990.

Interesting news from RXi Pharmaceuticals, a company founded by Craig Mello - Nobel Prize winner for medicine in 2006 for his discovery of RNAi gene-silencing technology, their drug that is called RXi-109 is an inhibitor of CTGF protein (I guess it is similar to EXC-001 and Excaliard Pharmaceuticals), I hope it is not a scam like Renovo and Juvista

May 31, 2012

RXi Pharmaceuticals Receives FDA Clearance to Begin Clinical Trial with RXI-109

http://www.rxipharma.com/2012/05/3931/

June 26, 2012

RXi Pharmaceuticals Announces Initiation of First Clinical Trial

http://www.rxipharma...clinical-trial/

About RXi Pharmaceuticals

RXi Pharmaceuticals Corporation (OTCBB:RXII) is a biotechnology company focused on discovering, developing and commercializing innovative therapies based on its proprietary, next-generation RNAi platform. Therapeutics that use RNA interference, or “RNAi,” have great promise because of their ability to “silence,” or down-regulate, the expression of a specific gene that may be overexpressed in a disease condition. Building on the pioneering work of scientific founder and Nobel Laureate Dr. Craig Mello, RXi’s first RNAi product candidate, RXI-109, which targets CTGF (connective tissue growth factor), will commence human clinical trials in anti-scarring in 2012.

Craig C. Mello, Ph.D., Founder and Scientific Advisory Board Chairman

Dr. Mello has served as the Chairman of our Scientific Advisory Board since February 2007. Dr. Mello, co-recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Medicine for RNAi, co-discovered RNAi and co-invented RNAi therapeutics. Dr. Mello is the Blais University Chair in Molecular Medicine at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, a Howard Hughes Investigator and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. In 2006, he was named the inaugural recipient of The Dr. Paul Janssen Award for Biomedical Research by Johnson & Johnson and was the co-recipient of the Paul Ehrlich and Ludwig Darmstaedter Prize. Dr. Mello was also the co-recipient of the National Academy of Sciences’ Award in Molecular Biology and the Wiley Prize in the Biomedical Sciences from Rockefeller University in 2003. He was a postdoctoral fellow at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and in 1995, was named a Pew Scholar in the Biomedical Sciences. Dr. Mello received his B.S. in Biochemistry from Brown University in 1982 and his Ph.D. in Cellular and Developmental Biology from Harvard University in 1990.

That is great news!! If it is not a scam.

A drug that works internally, hydrogel, recell, stem cell, acell, etc. Scareless healing is a matter of time, not possibility!!!!

Edited by WinnieTheBlue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is great news!! If it is not a scam.

A drug that works internally, hydrogel, recell, stem cell, acell, etc. Scareless healing is a matter of time, not possibility!!!!

Well I don't know WinnieTheBlue, we should ask Seabs what does he think about that?

I'm not sure that they will achieve some extraordinary good results that are close to scar free healing by targeting only a single gene... I believe they will need a whole pipeline of anti-scarring drugs for the good results... and I don't like to hear 'scarless healing' because if someone say so most probably it's a scam or it means poor results, I prefer to hear 'scar-free healing'... and because of that I have more faith in that hydrogel stuff from John Hopkins University and in that salamander stuff from University of Kentucky and University of Florida - they both say 'scar-free healing' and not 'scarless healing'... but unfortunately both are only research projects at universities... at least for now... and still there are no established companies trying to commercialize scar-free healing therapies that are based on their researches, there are only research papers for now and nothing more...

actually the most interesting thing for me in the whole story from their website is RNAi technology - I think it is one of the most important and most promising discovery in genetic engineering so far - downregulation and upregulation of genes and their expressions is possible without affecting DNA - Craig Mello got Nobel Prize for that discovery in 2006:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNAi

http://en.wikipedia....ogy_or_Medicine

that technology could be used not only for scars but for many other diseases.

Edited by Vladislav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I say is always stick to fact based logic, always stick to known logical frameworks, always look for results before anything, like over detailed theory and stick to the results. Do not promote an authority figure, its ok to reference though. Learn from the history of the subject.

Edited by seabs135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I say is always stick to fact based logic, always stick to known logical frameworks, always look for results before anything, like over detailed theory and stick to the results. Do not promote an authority figure, its ok to reference though. Learn from the history of the subject.

What I say is always stick to fact based logic, always stick to known logical frameworks, always look for results before anything, like over detailed theory and stick to the results. Do not promote an authority figure, its ok to reference though. Learn from the history of the subject.

Yes we need results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If something shows evidence of reepithilization in a time framework that is a result.

Edited by seabs135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we need results.

Actually RXi-109 should be more effective then EXC-001 because it is based on more advanced sd-rxRNA technology (it is more effective than standard RNAi technology) and because of that RXi-109 will be able to inhibit CTGF much more then EXC-001, so results will be better then this:

3106528.jpeg?1305129306

Something about EXC-001:

http://www.isispharm...C001_Poster.pdf

And there where no problems with EXC-001 in phase 2 clinical trials like there were problems with Juvista in phase 2 clinical trials (phase 3 trials will begin in 2013)... so EXC-001 is more effective then Juvista and RXi-109 will be more effective then EXC-001... but I don't know... still I have serious doubts that they will achieve something like 90% reduction of scarring by targeting only a single gene... anyway I hope it's not a scam like Renovo and I hope that Craig Mello and other people in company's management will not exercise all of their stock options before announcement of phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial results... but if they do so (like Mark Ferguson did in 2007) then we will know it is another Juvista-like scam...

Edited by Vladislav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Seabs can you explain me something about that hydrogel research paper please:

http://www.pnas.org/...8.full.pdf html

skindifferentation.gif

Skin Maturity Quantification. The skin structure on day 21 was assessed using

H&E-stained histologic sections, according to previously published methods

(39). At 21 d after the burn, we used specific criteria to assess each wound

histologically for the number of hair follicles, epithelial maturation, and

dermal differentiation.

...

The grading for dermal differentiation used the following

criteria: grade 1, thin, dense, and monotonous fibrosis; 2, thicker but still

dense and monotonous fibrosis; 3, two layers but not completely discreet;

4, two discreet layers with superficial fibrosis and loose alveolar tissue within the deep layer.

What does it mean 'dermal differentation'? I don't understand grade 3 and grade 4 - some 'layers' that are not 'completely discreet' are mentioned and some 'superficial fibrosis' and 'loose alveolar tissues' are mentioned - I don't know what does it mean?

And I don't understand whether this hydrogel can regenerate open dermal wounds that are NOT stitched?

Edited by Vladislav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sometimes highlight benchmarks by using previously set methodological standards (e.g. you can measure how far someone can jump in the long jump and compare it to previous standards etc. But you’d not be able to highlight your result against something for the long jump if there was no previous standardised criteria in the long jump assuming you are the first to do the long jump) . Imo all they are doing is showing the standards they have used that have been used in the past in other experiments were “skin maturity” was assessed.

And in the paper on the first sentence of the paragraph they have explained how they assessed the skin maturity results at day 21 using previous benchmark standards someone else has used.

(Btw on the paper they assessed the maturity over the whole experiment, e.g. at day 7 and 10 they noted the scaffold had been digested, whereas the control scaffold had not. And I’m sure somewhere I read that they checked the maturity of the skin way after day 30. But I don’t think there were previous standards set for checking the skin maturity at day 10, or if there was they did not know about it.)

"Skin Maturity Quantification. The skin structure on day 21 was assessed using H&E-stained histologic sections, according to previously published methods (39). “

Which according to cite 39, was a standard that was previously used here >>>> “Ehrbar M, et al. (2004) Cell-demanded liberation of VEGF121 from fibrin implants induces local and controlled blood vessel growth. Circ Res 94:1124–1132.”

And then they went onto explain the indicators used in the previously set standard like the differentiation of the tissue that was a standard indicator previously designed and used by someone else. That someone elses indicator standard did not have any more criteria. Also the graded criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4 would have been decided on before hand in the design phase, and would have not been wrote up afterwards with the conclusion. The grades are just indicators used in a standard which was decided upon before the experiment and then used in this experiment, that were used previously in another seperate experiment (in cite 39). They just used this standard to explain the skin maturity at day 21. All they are doing there is explaining how they decided to benchmarked the hydrogel against previously set test standards already established for skin maturity.

They did not set or design these standards, they just decided to use these previous set standards.

But the key logic here is, if there was any scar you would not get hair and micro-glands in a third degree burn. No tissue bar scar regenerates in scar, a key logical fact. And they would not announce complete regeneration in the paper. And if a wound reepithilizes in under 21 days you do not get scar as a scar loop takes over 21 days to scar.

Regarding the stitches. The design of the experiment did not mention they secured the wound with stitches, they explained that they created a third degree burn cut out the full thickness burn, and inserted the hydrogel and used a dressing to keep it securely in place… Off the top of my head IMO I imagine that putting stitches in would be a problem, I’ve read that stitches can create scar when the body tries over time to eject the stitch or digest the stitch. Anyway I'd imagine stitching through the hydrogel would be like stitching jelly. Maybe in certain types of wound this may mean you’d have to revise any part of the long wound messed by stitches if you stitched...

Edited by seabs135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then they went onto explain the indicators used in the previously set standard like the differentiation of the tissue that was a standard indicator previously designed and used by someone else. That someone elses indicator standard did not have any more criteria. Also the graded criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4 would have been decided on before hand in the design phase, and would have not been wrote up afterwards with the conclusion. The grades are just indicators used in a standard which was decided upon before the experiment and then used in this experiment, that were used previously in another seperate experiment (in cite 39). They just used this standard to explain the skin maturity at day 21. All they are doing there is explaining how they decided to benchmarked the hydrogel against previously set test standards already established for skin maturity.

They did not set or design these standards, they just decided to use these previous set standards.

Well I don't know, that chart shows the skin maturation slightly above 3... and I don't know what that "T" above the scale stands for? If we can calculate that "T" then the skin maturation is about 4.5... and there are some horizontal ] with * and ** - I don't know what is that stands for?

And it's strange that hydrogel can regenerate full thickness excisional wounds in only 3 or 5 weeks when we know that salamanders can regenerate same kind of wounds completely in 3 to 6 months...

By the way here is another discussion about that hydrogel - some people think that it could lead to a definitive cure for baldness (because it creates hair follicles)

http://www.baldtruth...read.php?t=7090

If it is a definite cure for scars and for baldness then what is a market size for that hydrogel? $4 (scars) + $10 billion (baldness) = $14 billion a year in the US alone and I would say at least $50 billion globally... rolleyes.gif then this hydrogel could conquer the world so easily, it could be the next Microsoft and will have another Forbes billionaires from JHU soon... rolleyes.gif then why it cannot get NIH funding!!!??

Edited by Vladislav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then they went onto explain the indicators used in the previously set standard like the differentiation of the tissue that was a standard indicator previously designed and used by someone else. That someone elses indicator standard did not have any more criteria. Also the graded criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4 would have been decided on before hand in the design phase, and would have not been wrote up afterwards with the conclusion. The grades are just indicators used in a standard which was decided upon before the experiment and then used in this experiment, that were used previously in another seperate experiment (in cite 39). They just used this standard to explain the skin maturity at day 21. All they are doing there is explaining how they decided to benchmarked the hydrogel against previously set test standards already established for skin maturity.

They did not set or design these standards, they just decided to use these previous set standards.

Well I don't know, that chart shows the skin maturation slightly above 3... and I don't know what that "T" above the scale stands for? If we can calculate that "T" then the skin maturation is about 4.5... and there are some horizontal ] with * and ** - I don't know what is that stands for?

And it's strange that hydrogel can regenerate full thickness excisional wounds in only 3 or 5 weeks when we know that salamanders can regenerate same kind of wounds completely in 3 to 6 months...

By the way here is another discussion about that hydrogel - some people think that it could lead to a definitive cure for baldness (because it creates hair follicles)

http://www.baldtruth...read.php?t=7090

If it is a definite cure for scars and for baldness then what is a market size for that hydrogel? $4 (scars) + $10 billion (baldness) = $14 billion a year in the US alone and I would say at least $50 billion globally... rolleyes.gif then this hydrogel could conquer the world so easily, it could be the next Microsoft and will have another Forbes billionaires from JHU soon... rolleyes.gif then why it cannot get NIH funding!!!??

They designed the test with a hypothesis that did not expect complete regeneration but would get better healing through the speed of the digestion of the hydrogel, the result was a suprise. It digested fast and brought complete regeneration. In the pdf I have I have a chart that shows at day 35 the thickness of the skin treated by the hydrogel is the same thickness size as normal skin. It also shows that at day 21 the control and the untreated wounds had roughly the same hair numbers per mm (roughly 0 to 1) and the hydrogel had 10 to 15 hairs per mm.

I reckon a market is big but imo but I would not go as far to say a market for this (or almost anything for that matter) would be the making of the next microsoft (the potential for microsoft and google is that everyone could realistically have a pc one day and through this, this market is extreme and rare. IMO only some established percentage of people have the problem of scars, but those that have them suffer immensely.) Also I believe the market of 4 billion is probably overstated somewhere and probably through this unreliable, it is a forward sounding crystal ball statement imo. Anyway talking about markets is no where as important as removing the immense suffering that happens in 3rd degree burns.

I was reading something the other day on the NIH funding page that an R-something (there is three of them) can take 5month+ to get funding.

Edited by seabs135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, if you're right then they've made a quite confusing bar chart, I mean they could draw it so that skin differentiation for hydrogel shows 5 or 6 or 7 or they could draw that bar chart without that rectangular bar for the hydrogel - instead they could just write 'complete skin differentiation' or something like that.

And this photo looks very, very promising (if it is not Photoshop manipulation) - actually I don't care how that hydrogel works or how huge is the market size for it, the only thing that is important is that it works hifive.gif (if it really works, of course)

mouse.jpg

although it looks like hair is not so densely distributed at the site of the injury like at the rest of the skin - so the other question that we should ask ourselves is how many hair follicles are at the site of the injury and how many hair follicles are at the uninjured skin? eusa_think.gif

And here are some intriguing quotes:

The results showed that the dextran hydrogel promoted significant skin maturation;

Why 'significant', why not 'complete'? eusa_think.gif

Histological analysis revealed that, compared to wound healing when treated with the control scaffold, dextran hydrogel yielded an accelerated healing kinetics, which resulted in regenerated skin with a defined underlying collagen layer after 3 weeks of treatment

What is that mean 'defined underlying collagen layer'? eusa_think.gif

And it is known that maturation and remodeling phase during wound healing in mammals and salamanders lasts for 6 months or 12 months or something like that, so how it is possible that with this hydrogel it lasts for only 3 to 5 weeks? Are there any changes after the 5th week or everything is over then? eusa_think.gif

Edited by Vladislav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would hydrogel be able to treat deep boxscars/ tissue loss scars? i suffer greatly from these so i am curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, if you're right then they've made a quite confusing bar chart, I mean they could draw it so that skin differentiation for hydrogel shows 5 or 6 or 7 or they could draw that bar chart without that rectangular bar for the hydrogel - instead they could just write 'complete skin differentiation' or something like that.

And this photo looks very, very promising (if it is not Photoshop manipulation) - actually I don't care how that hydrogel works or how huge is the market size for it, the only thing that is important is that it works hifive.gif (if it really works, of course)

mouse.jpg

although it looks like hair is not so densely distributed at the site of the injury like at the rest of the skin - so the other question that we should ask ourselves is how many hair follicles are at the site of the injury and how many hair follicles are at the uninjured skin? eusa_think.gif

And here are some intriguing quotes:

The results showed that the dextran hydrogel promoted significant skin maturation;

Why 'significant', why not 'complete'? eusa_think.gif

Histological analysis revealed that, compared to wound healing when treated with the control scaffold, dextran hydrogel yielded an accelerated healing kinetics, which resulted in regenerated skin with a defined underlying collagen layer after 3 weeks of treatment

What is that mean 'defined underlying collagen layer'? eusa_think.gif

And it is known that maturation and remodeling phase during wound healing in mammals and salamanders lasts for 6 months or 12 months or something like that, so how it is possible that with this hydrogel it lasts for only 3 to 5 weeks? Are there any changes after the 5th week or everything is over then? eusa_think.gif

I cant see your image but if it is the one on page 5 (I think) then that to me looks like normal mouse hair were the wound was treated imo. Regarding remodelling, our non scarred tissues are always remodelling, creating new non scarred tissue and ejecting dead tissue throughout our lives, tissue never stands still. Regarding the hydrogel, wouldn't the hydrogel be finished its job in the wound as soon as it is digested after about 7 to 10 days and the remodelling of the tissue be the beginning of a lifetime process?

Regarding the definition and interpretation of certain words and phrases I do not know. I mean I've used words which have been interpretated different, you have and everyone has.. Again what I stick to are the concluded facts, that it regenerated glands and follicles, It reepithilized the skin by day 14 (under 21 days), it rapidly digested the hydrogel, it had complete regeneration were the control and non treated did not ect.

So..when hydrogelitsgonna beonsale/its works or not?

It is still waiting for funding by the looks of it.

Edited by seabs135

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is the one on page 5, I'm just curious about this sentence:

Histological analysis revealed that, compared to wound healing when treated with the control scaffold, dextran hydrogel yielded an accelerated healing kinetics, which resulted in regenerated skin with a defined underlying collagen layer after 3 weeks of treatment

What is that collagen anyway I don't know? 'A defined underlying collagen layer' - is it a normal skin or a scar?

Edited by Vladislav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realisticly when will hydrogel be available in north america? i live in Toronto Canada will the united states get it first before we do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sentence is ecouraging:

By day 21, burn wounds treated with hydrogel developed a mature epithelial structure with hair follicles and sebaceous glands. After 5 weeks of treatment, the hydrogel scaffolds promoted new hair growth and epidermal morphology and thickness similar to normal mouse skin.

What is that 'edipermal morphology'? is that the appearance of skin surface оr what? And that photo from page 5 was taken after 5 weeks, not after 3 weeks.

Edited by Vladislav

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

×