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


Veteran Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by seabs135

  1. Hi scarsgone, if you are asking about a scar revision, and you want a scar revision right now, I'd advise see a Dr. for a scar revision. A scar does take months to form; and it has been highlighted clinically that if a burn re-epithelizes under 21 days there is less scar. With regards to your theory, again I'm assuming you mean some scar revision? If so, then Imo, you would scar if you remove a scar, and let it heal as normal. There is plenty of evidence of re-scarring after scar revision he
  2. Lapis, the term ‘scarless' is ambiguous. It can also be used for percentage improvement of scars. The video is not scientific, it is a promotional video, by someone using authority. I can and anyone else can pull up loads of promotional videos using authority. But I don’t point to authority. This woman has not pointed to specific scientific papers in this video. However ironically researching her leads me to her cv, if you look at her cv, in 2002 she investigated some known injection (injection
  3. Wildono, the tested treatment, beat the control, a control that behaves typically and as expected in all tissues. It completely regenerated a full thickness 3rd degree burn, the control behaved typically. Scientifically with a testable method, it got scar free healing. This treatment, for complete regeneration, will be here in maybe 12months going on what has been cited. These cites are from trusted sources.
  4. The latest news according to the gemstone Facebook site is there will be a site up soon...
  5. Lapis that was in 2010 and it was a future sounding statement. It is also a statement by authority, which is a highly unreliable way to judge any information, it is open to human biases. However, since then there have been two or three testable scientific documents that show results. We have the hydrogel which beat the control, and got compete regeneration and is advancing. We have the msc whartons jelly which regenerated appendages which is not advancing yet, as far as I know.
  6. “Mice in some cases can regrow hair over the scar tissue, humans can`t.” (<<<check that as that is the premise you stated) The premise here is “Mice can sometimes regrow hair over scar tissue, and humans can't.” (<<<This premise is fixed) The premise has NOT been changed and it is now NOT (hence the goal posts have not been moved): “Mice can regrow hair in and around scar tissue, after human intervention brings some regenerative and support tissue inside a wound. Example a
  7. Repola, I'm not fighting anyone. You brought up a premise and gave misleading sources to validate a premise. I have pointed it out because it is misinformation. You also brought forward a mistake that contraction was less scar, which I left alone, as I suspected that could flame something. With regards to me answering questions, I answer via what has been quoted, or what the science states. With regards to me attacking anyone. How can I attack someone if I quote off a paper, or from an article
  8. I should take a break from this thread… Repola, to save time I’m going to go through what you have just stated. This all goes back to here In this post you posted “Mice in some cases can regrow hair over the scar tissue, humans can`t.” (<<<check that as that is the premise) The premise here is “Mice can sometimes regrow hair over scar tissue, and humans can't.” (<<<This premise is fixed) I’ll go through your reply: First you state, “I have been Reading all the cites
  9. Yep, I've yet to see any source that shows hair grows in any scar in a mouse or any mammal spontaneously... The only time hair grows back is with the process of regeneration near the appendage, not scarring. I have nothing against errors, we all make them, but the premise that hair grows in scarring spontaneously, without human intervention, is clearly misinformation which harms accurate information. I would have brought up your last Sun source if I had it http://www.jscimedcentral.com/Regenera
  10. Repola, I’m not being rude here, but if you show me your sources at least quote what you are looking at, so I don’t have to CTRL + F hair, and so I can cut the work load. This is like shoving a massive 1000 page document on someone’s desk. And this is going to produce a needlessly long post. Anyway, the sources you have provided here do not back up what you originally stated, what you have done is here is lazy, you are also hoping that I say f... this work load... And then you can claim some im
  11. Repola in the paper the wound got complete regeneration. This was also an experiment with a control which also dissolved in the tissue, and where the typical behaviour is known of the control, which gives this its reliability of a parallel process. The control has been tested on every mammal going from small mammals to big mammals that have more tissue stress on wounds. The control behaves similar in all, it gets digested in all wounds... Btw, hair growth from a burn scar, I have never ever seen
  12. Enoughisenough, you will twist my words again and again conveying this is a debate, wasting my time, I will stick to the empirical evidence and wont budge. I have stated, using the reference of a peer reviewed paper, complete regeneration was proven (<<<evidence, evidence) 'in the past' as in 2011 against a very reliable control.' What you have done in the quote is a strawman argument. Fallacious. I have not stated anything future tense, the papers I reference are in past with a result,
  13. Enoughiseough, Take note of what? That was an 'opinion' in 2010, it is not scientific evidence. Nearlydefeated I keep going on about reviewed scientific data because: get this: 'It is actually the truth,' It is reliable, It maintains standards, it gives you expectancy and advancement, It is not the opinion of me, you or anyone else, it is something that comes from get this: a testable method not, 'opinion,' or bias.
  14. I'm banging my head against a brick wall, I'm getting a witch Dr telling me I underestimate, you could not make this up. I underestimate nothing, Get this: it not a debate, it cannot be a debate, as you cannot debate a scientific result. And I'm only interested in 'scientific data.' Evidence has been presented of 'complete regeneration,' therefore: something has 'completely regenerated' morphology, therefore it 'regenerates morphology.' It something regenerates a tree it regenerates a tree and s
  15. Your version of 'common sense' is coming to the conclusion and that is garbage in garbage out. Your false dichotomy choice or your ownership of a conclusion, is also bs. Again, here is the courage of my conviction: using the peer reviewed evidence, from the paper, and the control, the scientific expectancy of a parallel process of complete regeneration is high. Other wise they would not have advanced. Once it is approved and if it gets complete regeneration like expected, then logically it coul
  16. I see you are going on to your version of common sense? Science? It is everywhere you look. The computer you are using is the result of methodology and testing, the car you might drive is the result of science. What use is science? Ok then, try to prove something with no methodology, or a low grading of methodology and then claim it as fact? Doing so will generally produce garbage in and garbage out. Science removes garbage and bs. This is what I've claimed, by citing a paper written in 2011,
  17. I'm pulling my hair out, on this planet there are 7billion humans with versions of common sense, which one is the best version??? Which one is the most rational? Tell me? Btw, a scientific method, just proves something objectively and is rational to all. Sticking to the science, the standards, the expectancy, is perfectly rational and reasoned, its scrutiny. If you did not do that things would never progress. Everything would literally go to a free for all, with all versions of 'common sense' c
  18. NearlyDefeated, then you agree with mindless message board sound bites, message board misinformation, pseudoscience, speculation, anonymous internet diagnosis, judgement by perceptual vision over the microscope (which he is a fan of, his vision is more reliable than a microscopic examination, apparently), prejudicing scientific evidence, and ignorance of scientific factual evidence. He hasn't stated anything accurate, rational, or reliable at all. What he has stated is driven by the way he, sub
  19. Enoughisenough, the 'scientific evidence,' (I'm not going to shout), using the control (that has been used on all tissues on every mammal), shows the expectancy is very, very high that this is a parallel process. This is all testable. Example, if someone does not like a result, they can test it again. Enoughisenough, I'm not being nasty, but imo you do not understand the difference between 'common sense' (subjectivity) and empirical 'evidence'. You also do not understand the concept of misinfor
  20. You don't take scientific information, or anything that can be tested, with, to use the sound bite, a 'pinch of salt,' you test it, you verify it with action; you do however take speculation or pseudo science with, a 'pinch of salt.'
  21. I've said if something is proven, it is proven. Btw any ignorant assertion that we have to create (use an artistic license) something new or interesting for the thread is wrong imo. (This thread repeats itself, you are right in claiming deja vu) Seriously, what more can you do than repeat cited reliable facts that do with scar free healing??? Do you want to expand on bs over facts? Example do you want, anonymous people to be creative and write a non cited essay? Do you want posters to spec
  22. I have alot of issues ... having anxiety disorder and depression while losing loved ones at an early age does that while having an emotionally cold stepdad and a mother that's crippled .. Read some Krishnamurti. I recommend ''the first and last freedom'' The complete regeneration has so far only been shown to work in mice. They are conducting large animal trials and later human trials to determine if it will work that well on humans. Those results are still pending, but from what I've h
  23. The complete regeneration has so far only been shown to work in mice. They are conducting large animal trials and later human trials to determine if it will work that well on humans. Those results are still pending, but from what I've heard, the results for the large animal trials should be wrapping up soon. And no, you are wrong, there is still much work to be done on human skin, even if this proves to be miraculous for skin regeneration. This would only be a temporary fix for chronic skin
  24. Enoughisenough, all I do on the board is state the expectancy of the science with regards to the topic scar free healing; if the expectancy is high then imo it is justified that anyone should highlight it for the sake of common knowledge and being progressive. Btw I know it can sometimes look like I'm being rude, but I'm now genuinely not interested in wasting any time on anything else, and I try to draw myself away from speculation, or anything that withdraws from scar free healing. When you ha