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

seabs135

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    895
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by seabs135

  1. If something states 'complete regeneration'/scar free healing in its information, like sunogel does then that something has a scientific/engineering burden to upkeep. I will keep referencing that scientific/engineering burden for them publically... You see, this is simple, I want people like this to be funded, I want them to progress 'fast,' very fast... I will also not be wasting my time talking about the 'future' or alternative percentage improvement products to scar free healing on a scar fre
  2. This thread is really the wrong place to ask this question at the minute and it has been for a long time... If you look at the thread carefully the thread has two or more topics going simultaneously... One topic is scar free healing and the other topic is 'percentage improvements/' or future percentage improvements. So if you look at the thread, one topic is the discussion of scar free healing/complete regeneration/scarless healing, (all used interchangeably) hence perfect regeneration; and the
  3. FS2 does not bring scar free healing. There is no scientific document that show it brings scar free healing... No matter how many times you say it might, it really doesn't bring scar free healing in its papers. It has set its own standard. Without being rude to you, this argument with regards to FS2, is silly. I have not discredited FS2, I have, if you like, described what is written on the tin. Believe you and me, if the science stated 'complete regeneration,' or 'scarless healing,' or 'scar fr
  4. The ability to move things along is clearly not in Dr Suns control. Dr Sun has shown science that brings complete regeneration in the past with a paper... He has given himself a burden. You are constantly promoting that scar free healing is a 'future problem' on an internet message board about 'scar free healing...' You are constantly trying to give an impression that this is hopeless. I know one thing here, if I thought this was 'hopeless', or this was a 'future problem,' I'd certainly not
  5. I have not made any false statements anywhere. My position is very simple and straight forward. Lets number my statements: and take a quick look: 1. 'Dr Sun, and John Hopkins have brought out papers that showed scar free healing.' He is a scientist with a burden. In no where have I twisted that information... 2. 'Scar free healing was proven in 1997, when it was shown small wounds do not scar, therefore it is not a future problem we can all day dream about.' In no where have a twisted
  6. It is strange. It is like they are either wanting reassurance (which imo is probable), or, they, nefariously, are interested in diverting information in a certain way to suit a long term bias... I know if I did not believe the facts I have seen about scar free healing being a fact, I would not come on this board determined to explain to the many, 'it is x years away' every day - it would be like watching paint dry, imo. Repeatedly telling people it is not coming would be like watching paint dry,
  7. We are partially on the same page. But Sunogel is a device. I once read medical devices take weeks to 4 years to come to market. Weeks for a class 1 device and 3 to 4 years for a class 3 device. It is a device that could also use a digestable material as a predicate, which would make an even faster track to market... There are plenty of digestable materials to predicate it with too. A predicate would mean the device would be classed as a class 2 device too. To boot it has also done it's animal t
  8. Scar free healing, or complete regeneration is the return of perfect tissue. I and others are only interested in scar free healing. The problem with percentage improvements is that 90% to you could be 10% to someone else and you cannot accurately measure what x% is. You also have the fact that peoples perceptions will change day by day. Example on one day someone may think the scar improvement is 10% then on day three they may think it is 70%, then on day 5 think it is 20%. Sunogel has clai
  9. I have deliberately brought nothing new to the conversation. You asked for some of my sources which show scar free healing and therefore end the argument that scar free healing is a problem of the future...
  10. I have not restated or reinforced anything you have said in different wording. I said if say, Polarity have done something, then that has no bearing on Dr Sun, who has absolutely nothing to do with Polarity. Just like you have nothing to do with your a neighbours business. I also mentioned Polarity have changed what they mean by scar free healing as time went by, which is true. Polarityte tried to change the meaning of complete regeneration. However complete regeneration to everyone else, means
  11. The thing is scientists/engineers can try to fool people all they want, as scientists they understand they live and die by the 'burden.' There was a famous case a few year back were a scientist did lie, and this brought tragic consequences, people lost their status as scientists. And sadly one scientist even took his life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulus-triggered_acquisition_of_pluripotency Btw you frame it that Avotermin, Juvista as once stating 'complete regeneration.' They never
  12. Complete regeneration occurred in 2011 with a hydrogel... This is a fact... Dr Sun in testing also claimed complete regeneration in 2016 with another tunable hydrogel. He brought forward a paper for his disruption. This is a fact. (These are probative signed off documents...) Dr Sun is also a scientist/engineer with a burden. All scientists/engineers that state something burden themselves. When a scientist claims something, for the sake of progression, you should always keep him to the burden. T
  13. No offense Frasier, but I do not want to keep coming to this thread, again and again and again to refute misinformation... The hydrogel has proven scar free healing by the fact it has got rete pegs, scar tissue does not get rete pegs... I could go on and on, and on highlighting that and then other people could go on and on obscuring and then misinforming the scientific information from the consensus in a never ending circle. Where time will be wasted and wasted and wasted...
  14. I was just pointing out that the hydrogel did not scar in the porcine model as the hydrogel got rete pegs. Scars do not have rete pegs.
  15. I have been looking at this since 2011. In 2011 the hydrogel highlighted complete regeneration. Gemstone have indicated the hydrogel for use in diabetic wounds. With regards to the porcine testing. In no paper have they disclosed they got incomplete regeneration. In the paper Acellular hydrogels for regenerative burn wound healing: translation from a porcine model they tested a couple of mechanisms which the hydrogel promoted regeneration, this is highlighted in the introduction... In that pape
  16. -> http://www.pnas.org/content/108/52/20976
  17. I don't post on here much these days as the thread keeps repeating itself.., Anyway: science does not change... Complete regeneration was proven in 2011.
  18. Every non injured tissue on your body completely regenerates. Wounds with a diffusion distance less than 2mm can regenerate completely. Tissues that reepithialize in under 2weeks completely regenerate,.. Then you have various scientific papers that have shown complete regeneration that have been shown on this thread..
  19. Well I take the objective information in the PNAS type journals and scientific statements more seriously than something stated on a message board. Btw I would guess the things you have been let down by are things that use subjective statements that say something like '50% or 90% 'scar-less' improvement...' You will always be let down by statements like that. Whereas complete regeneration is objective. When will it be here? hopefully soon.
  20. Looking at the gemstone site, it looks iike a gel will be used on humans in the next year or so... Btw, imo, you cant define if something is 5% or 90% better. What is 90% to you may 5% to another. Things are either completely regenerated, or incompletely regenerated...
  21. All scars are the same, In that they are an over production of collagen. Look into the hydrogel treatment that has been highlighted, which has been shown to completely regenerate tissue.
  22. I'm still here, it is just I currently don't see the point in repeating the facts for new readers if they keep getting lost and wasted in the noise of other information, info that has nothing to do with complete regeneration. It is like a constant fire fight, it gets tiring. Btw nothing has changed in the facts. There is absolutely nothing to be upset about the JH hydrogel, the documents do not change. I think they are moving to human tests this year?
  23. This will be classed as a device and will only require one clinical trial. This clinical trial will start in one year from now, be completed in two years from now, and the finished product will reach clinics in three years from now (in my rough estimation). A while ago I read the trial process for a device is not like a drug trial process and device approval process can last a few months. Also I read that some devices are even allowed to be sold even when the approval process in on going... I do
  24. I just think it is some sentence, in some article, describing a paper that highlighted reepithialization of a tissue in under 14days...
  25. Nothing has changed. The scientific info hasn't changed. It reepithialized inside two weeks whereas only 14% of the control did. This is also even more translative to human skin... Some medical professionals claim that scars can form within 14 days though. Here is clinical data that highlights scarring is very rare in anything wound that reepithilizes in under 14 days.. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16901651
×