Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,094 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The name is slightly misleading, but the results aren’t.

It’s being called the “skin gun,” and if it takes off it could revolutionize how burn victims are treated. The invention, which looks and acts more like an airbrush than a gun, uses a patient’s own stem cells (taken from healthy skin), combines them in a solution in the gun, and then sprays them on the burned area. In the small number of patients that have been treated, the results have been nothing short of miraculous: skin that might normally take weeks or months to heal rejuvenates in days. And to the naked eye, signs of the burn are barely visible.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/incredible-skin-gun-heals-severe-burns-in-days/
 

·
Boom Shacka
Joined
·
2,423 Posts
I do hope it works and helps people. Of course it will be to pricy for Obamacare to cover the cost.:upeyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,710 Posts
I do hope it works and helps people. Of course it will be to pricy for Obamacare to cover the cost.:upeyes:
:upeyes:

Really? That's what you have to say about a piece of medical technology that could potentially help thousands of people?

I've known people who have suffered burns, and the pain during recovery is horrible. I hope that this device fulfills its promise, and I congratulate the researchers that worked on it.
 

·
Smartass Pilot
Joined
·
20,786 Posts
I've known people who have suffered burns, and the pain during recovery is horrible. I hope that this device fulfills its promise, and I congratulate the researchers that worked on it.
I think what he's trying to say is that this kind of innovation probably wouldn't happen under a socialized healthcare system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,238 Posts
I think what he's trying to say is that this kind of innovation probably wouldn't happen under a socialized healthcare system.
What he is trying to say is that he is an idiot with his head stuck far too deep into his rectal cavity.

As for your argument (that you try and attribute to others), this is EXACTLY the kind of developments that is encouraged under a socialized medical system. This is something that reduces the cost of care which is the holy grail of socialized medicine, often to the detriment of the patient, though not in this case.

Now where this kind of development would not happen is under the rule of the American Taliban party, better known as the Republicans, since the treatment requires stem cells.
 

·
Retired Member
Joined
·
9,202 Posts
That's outstanding! :thumbsup:

It looks like something Doctors Crusher or McCoy would use in Star Trek! :wow:

Since they're using your own cells, and since they can biopsy, grow, and apply them, I think the guy said within 90-minutes, I don't know that it will be all that outrageously expensive... :headscratch:

Way cool! :supergrin:

--Ray
 

·
Drop those nuts
Joined
·
9,539 Posts
I think what he's trying to say is that this kind of innovation probably wouldn't happen under a socialized healthcare system.
Even under a not-so-socialized health care system it wouldn't make any difference, because the insurance companies will classify it as an unproven "experimental procedure" for as many years as possible - long past all realistic experimentation, and even if they have to fight the issue in court - before they ever start paying for people to have the treatment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,581 Posts
What he is trying to say is that he is an idiot with his head stuck far too deep into his rectal cavity.

As for your argument (that you try and attribute to others), this is EXACTLY the kind of developments that is encouraged under a socialized medical system. This is something that reduces the cost of care which is the holy grail of socialized medicine, often to the detriment of the patient, though not in this case.

Now where this kind of development would not happen is under the rule of the American Taliban party, better known as the Republicans, since the treatment requires stem cells.
Actually this is the kind of experimental treatment that socialized medicine despises due to its tremendous cost. And it uses ADULT stem cells from the patient being treated...not embyronic stem cells. Learn to read.
 

·
Drop those nuts
Joined
·
9,539 Posts
Actually this is the kind of experimental treatment that socialized medicine despises due to its tremendous cost. And it uses ADULT stem cells from the patient being treated...not embyronic stem cells. Learn to read.
How do you know the cost will be high at all? Especially compared to the much longer term care required to do things the old way. This thing might just be a serious money saver all around the table.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,430 Posts
Wow, that's amazing!! Looks like it will revolutionize burn victim treatments.

I did find it funny that it's reported on a website called "The Blaze" though...lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,430 Posts
Now where this kind of development would not happen is under the rule of the American Taliban party, better known as the Republicans, since the treatment requires stem cells.
That's ridiculous, it's not embryonic stem cells needed, they come right from the patients own skin, right before the procedure. There is no issues anyone has with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,581 Posts
How do you know the cost will be high at all? Especially compared to the much longer term care required to do things the old way. This thing might just be a serious money saver all around the table.
I really don't, I was just guessing based on other experimental treatments. I really wish they had that the two times I had severe burns...that is not something I want to experience again. I am sure there are a lot of burn units around the country chomping at the bit to try this out though...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,619 Posts
Even under a not-so-socialized health care system it wouldn't make any difference, because the insurance companies will classify it as an unproven "experimental procedure" for as many years as possible - long past all realistic experimentation, and even if they have to fight the issue in court - before they ever start paying for people to have the treatment.
Uhh... Wouldn't the doctors (surgeons) be the ones who fight such technology? Payors could stand to gain a higher margin on something like this.
 

·
Retired Member
Joined
·
9,202 Posts
What he is trying to say is that he is an idiot with his head stuck far too deep into his rectal cavity.

As for your argument (that you try and attribute to others), this is EXACTLY the kind of developments that is encouraged under a socialized medical system. This is something that reduces the cost of care which is the holy grail of socialized medicine, often to the detriment of the patient, though not in this case.

Now where this kind of development would not happen is under the rule of the American Taliban party, better known as the Republicans, since the treatment requires stem cells.

Nice thread hijack, you two! :thumbsup:

Encouragement and results may go hand-in-hand, but encouragement alone is no guaranty of success, as other motivations come into play too. That said, the United States is no slouch in breakthrough medicine--not by a long shot! :upeyes:

Keep in mind that Medicare and Medicaid already deny plenty of medications and treatments! There is good reason for concern! :shocked:

By the bye, most Republicans would be fine with this, since it does not involve aborted fetal stem cells. :whistling:

--Ray
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,329 Posts
Amazing technology. I'm not a fan of stem cell research. Yes, I can see the benefit and minimalization of suffering for burn victims.

Let's not get this thread locked.
 

·
Drop those nuts
Joined
·
9,539 Posts
Uhh... Wouldn't the doctors (surgeons) be the ones who fight such technology? Payors could stand to gain a higher margin on something like this.
True that the surgeons might see themselves losing income, but compared to the monetary clout of the insurance companies, the individual doctors really have no voice at all and the payers will be the ones who get their way on it.

My first comment was made before I really thought about how it might just turn out to be a cost savings, rather than being all that hugely expensive. My real point was that it really won't matter if we continue to have Obamacare or not, because it's the cost effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the invention that will determine how soon it becomes common. If it saves money, even Obamacare won't stop us from getting it.
 

·
Smartass Pilot
Joined
·
20,786 Posts
This is something that reduces the cost of care which is the holy grail of socialized medicine.
But since under a socialized system, no one can retain the rights to developing such a treatment, there is no incentive for anyone to develop it in the first place.

As for the rest of your post, WTF!?

Even under a not-so-socialized health care system it wouldn't make any difference, because the insurance companies will classify it as an unproven "experimental procedure" for as many years as possible - long past all realistic experimentation, and even if they have to fight the issue in court - before they ever start paying for people to have the treatment.
Not if it were cheaper than existing treatments, then they would be all over it. I will say that when the new, more effective treatment costs more than existing medicine then what you describe is a problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,536 Posts
What he is trying to say is that he is an idiot with his head stuck far too deep into his rectal cavity.

As for your argument (that you try and attribute to others), this is EXACTLY the kind of developments that is encouraged under a socialized medical system. This is something that reduces the cost of care which is the holy grail of socialized medicine, often to the detriment of the patient, though not in this case.

Now where this kind of development would not happen is under the rule of the American Taliban party, better known as the Republicans, since the treatment requires stem cells.
Yes, experimental and expensive treatments are exactly what socialized medicine encourages :upeyes: . Funny how just about every hospital in the US has at least 1 MRI machine, whereas such expensive technology is hard to come by in the holy grails of socialized medicine such as Great Britain. There are 27 MRI machines per million people in the US, compared to 6 in Britain and Canada. (Source at bottom). That means a place like NYC has approximately 220 MRI machines, whereas a similar population in GB has only 50. I wonder how long stroke patients have to wait their turn for an MRI in GB, compared to here. In my grandfather's case, the time was measured in minutes. They put him at the front of the line, as soon as a machine became available.

The issue with stem cells is nonsense. The article clearly states that the stem cells are coming from the patient himself. These are adult stem cells having nothing to do with embryos or republicans. Your lack of information and basic education on this issue is appalling. But of course, it is much easier to jump to conclusions than to do some research.

Source with some very interesting facts: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,619 Posts
True that the surgeons might see themselves losing income, but compared to the monetary clout of the insurance companies, the individual doctors really have no voice at all and the payers will be the ones who get their way on it.

My first comment was made before I really thought about how it might just turn out to be a cost savings, rather than being all that hugely expensive. My real point was that it really won't matter if we continue to have Obamacare or not, because it's the cost effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the invention that will determine how soon it becomes common. If it saves money, even Obamacare won't stop us from getting it.
Agreed.

This looks amazing though. My son was burned about two years ago and they put cadaver skin over his burns... It was probably 3 or 4 weeks before he was able to take a bath, and then another year of therapy. Something like this has to save money over the whole course of treatment. Not to mention how much better this technology seems for the patient.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top