The Skin Gun. A new treatment for burn victims. WOW!!!

[1monster]

[loudsue]

1. This is wonderful and amazing! Burns are the worst!

And allopathic medicine uses the MOST barbaric methods in burn units. I hope above all that this will continue to prove valuable to those burn victims.

[Nika]

2. If this lives up to the hype of the video, this is an awesome development.

[Tx4obama]

3. Wow that is amazing. More info on the links below

Skin cell gun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_cell_gun

Spray-On Skin Gun Heals Burns In Days
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/spray-on-skin-gun_n_817776.html

[RBInMaine]

4. Federal funding for this? "NO!!" says the GOP. "It's too scientific. Let God heal the skin!"

[obxhead]

7. Science isn't their roadblock.

Profit is the problem.

Spray some of your own stem cells at you, heal in days at minimal cost.

or

Put you in a room with bandages for days, then administer meds for months or years.... Massive returns.

[TheDebbieDee]

10. Yep! I believe this same reasoning explains why there isn't a cure

for any of the cancers yet.

Also, Type II Diabetes is definitely a winner for the pharmaceutical companies. They want to make sure that Americans eat a steady diet full of white sugar, hormone-filled meat and snack full of trans-fats.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. If you think curing cancer is that simple, tell us how to cure it.

The fact is that cancer is a very complex syndrome, a large collection of pathways and disease processes that are very difficult to unravel.

No amount of conspiracy theory mongering will simplify the situation.

[TheDebbieDee]

17. Read my post again. I never said curing cancer was simple.

But curing cancer is not a cost-effective act as far as pharmaceutical companies are concerned. They can't make as much of a profit curing diseases - but they can get over like fat rats by treating the symptoms of these diseases for a lifetime.

And that's why I said Type II Diabetes is a windfall for the pharms......

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. That view is simplistic and your attention is misplaced.

If cancer could be "cured" ... NB Cancer can't be cured as things stand and therefore the statement "curing cancer is not a cost-effective act" is null and void.

But if we reword your statement to the future tense in the sense of "to find a cure for cancer", even then it is non-sensical:

1) Any "cure" for cancer is likely to be expensive and involve new pharmacological remedies.

1b) The most promising lines of research (in my opinion) at this time involve developing techniques to tailor-make individualized treatments based on genomes and genetic signatures of the actual cancers involved. That will require lots of technology and products that pharmaceutical companies can provide.

2) Any "cure" for cancer will leave many many other diseases and conditions that pharmaceutical companies can treat. If magically suddenly nobody died of cancer, there would be lots of dementia and psychological conditions and heart conditions and obesity and endless other things for which pharmaceutical companies have "remedies".

---

I would suggest you focus your conspiracy theorizing on Big Pharma's huge push to drug and over-medicate children with over-diagnosis of ADD and ADHD along with marketing that subtly emphasizes making children into docile easy-to-manage pre-consumer units.

That's a "theory" with some teeth.

[JackInGreen]

23. Sometimes being a voice of reason is often a boon.

Just be sure that while you're correcting someone else you don't present yourself as a jackass. Your points are too cogent for the asinine and belittling way that I percieve you have just treated that individual.
Be kind, for fucks sake.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

24. Thank for your note of caution

I apologize because I often am over-eager to set people straight and forget the ancient Chinese proverb "Do not use an axe to remove a fly from the forehead of your friend".

[JackInGreen]

29. you're welcome

tried to be as polite about it as possible.
...and I LOVE that, perfect, thanks for the proverb (and thanks further to whoever it originated with).

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. I read your post again. You strongly imply that cancer

I read your post again. You effectively say that cancer is simple enough it should have been already cured. That view is simplistic in the extreme.

[1monster]

28. You inferred that. She did not necessarily imply that.

[Curmudgeoness]

5. I would like to believe this

but I have seen this video years ago, and so far, they are still not using it. So why? Is this real?

If it is real, I think it is time to take it out of the package and start using it.

[LisaL]

8. And where are the photos, videos of the actual patient's burn before treatment?

They show photos of some horrible burns, but admit this is not the actual patient's.

[immoderate]

11. It's like the Air Car. Seeing that one for more than 20 years.

Runs on compressed air. Never makes it to market. Perhaps their real business is attracting investors.

--imm

[KansDem]

25. "Perhaps their real business is attracting investors."

Or the patents are bought by corporations and shelved.

I remember during the Saudi oil embargo of the early '70s there was a "move" to make smaller gas-efficient cars. I remember I would see something like a "100mph car in 7 years!" PSA. Then I'd see the same PSA seven years later.

If a cure for cancer was discovered tomorrow, would if make it to the public? Call me a pessimist, but since Big Pharma makes oodles of money off treatments, would such companies offer a cure?

Just like the fossil-fuel industry: would we see a car that runs on compressed air when oodles of money can be had by extracting and processing oil?

[immoderate]

26. I'm not too big on conspiracies. The air car wasn't killed by oil companies.

It's the physics. You can't pack enough energy into compressed air, that fits in a car, to go anywhere.

But then, you have to have energy to compress that air in the first place. Where does that come from?

--imm

[Jesus Malverde]

6. Amazing stuff thanks for sharing it...nt

[alfredo]

9. I want to see the before shot of his face and shoulder, not just the after.

[FourScore]

12. They probably thought it was too gruesome.

They said it was second degree and showed what second degree looks like on the hand.

[alfredo]

13. Not much is too gruesome for the internet.

[FourScore]

15. I don't think it was originally broadcast for the internet. n/t

[alfredo]

20. Oh, I know. I was trying to say a funny.

[LisaL]

19. Since they show photos of somebody else's burn, I very much doubt that

they would think the patient's burn were too gruesome.

[FourScore]

16. I could see other applications for this as well, like to prevent scarring after cuts or surgeries.

[azurnoir]

18. wow is right

miraculous could be added too

[JNelson6563]

27. This is beyond amazing! Wow!

I am a baker and I know a little about burns. They take a long time to heal and that new skin is so very sensitive! And of course I've never had anything like what was shown in the video, thankfully!

This is just incredible!

Julie