Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Foregen- A new face-They need your support

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Plush1992 View Post
    ....

    Yes Foregen themselves are not a research organization, what they are is a group of managers, advertising team and finance team. They are a group of financiers. We give them money, they finance foreskin regeneration research, as simple as that. ...

    However as soon as they get enough funding then they will morph into a true research organization and all their time will go into research. Right now they have to do things like advertise, and support film documentaries and things like that because they are crowd funded and need to do things to get more funding before they can go balls deep into pure research.

    Foregen started out with one guy. Now after a few years they have an entire crew, medical labs, they've done research, de-cellurized a bulls foreskin, they have invigorated the spirit of people like me. They have done quite alot by seeing what they started out as.
    I'm sure you realize that the acknowledgment in your first sentence is in contradiction with your second paragraph, and completely at odds with your third paragraph. In other words you've done what I've seen as the usual forum "morph" (your word) from fact, into fiction.

    So I have to insist on the fact that both I, and you (in your first sentence) know that Foregen is not directly performing scientific research of any kind, so there is no way for them to "morph" into a group that does this directly (they aren't researchers), so "they" (Foregen) don't "have an entire crew" of scientific researchers of their own (they are money collectors, not a research group), nor have done "research" themselves. Perhaps they've commissioned some unknown group to .... who knows what, but nobody from Foregen is anything but a collection group. So....morphing from fact to fiction aside, I think less vague language is needed to inspire any sort of confidence that anything is happening, or will happen.

    And I have to say, the last anyone has heard about the concept of foreskin regeneration was that it was hypothesized (only) that it would use a matrix from a human cadaver for experimentation, if that ever happens, and that going farther afield to a different species (bull) was a pre cursor that only Foregen mentions (nobody professional has) to determine that a matrix of any kind would work at all, so certainly it (the de-cellularized matrix from a bull's penis) wouldn't be for anything directly involved in an actual experimentation directed towards something with a human penis in mind. In other words, a de-cellularized bull's foreskin isn't directly part of foreskin regeneration in any way; not even step 'one'. So I have trouble in thinking that anything professional has happened, not will it happen based on this concept.

    In still other words, why a bull, and not a human cadaver? Why was that concept discarded? Who discarded it, Foregen or someone professional, in the field of experimental tissue regeneration?

    Comment


    • #17
      Seems to me Forgen is like a charity where managers / organizers / backers take a huge percentage and the small amount left goes to do the R&D they aim to do.
      Noble cause yeas, but many of us tugers will be finished tugging and 6ft under by the time this noble cause eventuates.

      Best we can do is make infant circ totally illegal or so highly regulated to make it financially nonviable to save infant males, but with the spread of backwards religion - even this task is a huge challenge around the world.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by OzVic View Post
        Seems to me Forgen is like a charity where managers / organizers / backers take a huge percentage and the small amount left goes to do the R&D they aim to do.
        Noble cause yeas, but many of us tugers will be finished tugging and 6ft under by the time this noble cause eventuates.

        Best we can do is make infant circ totally illegal or so highly regulated to make it financially nonviable to save infant males, but with the spread of backwards religion - even this task is a huge challenge around the world.


        Here is a breakdown of their 2014 finances. They are making one for 2015 soon. These are the facts how the donations were spent for 2014. Im young, so I may not be 6ft under by time foreskin regeneration rolls around haha
        Last edited by Plush1992; 03-07-2016, 01:08 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          So about half (dollar, euro?), according to........whoever. But a pie chart, along with my other concerns above, don't actually describe who those scientists are who were commissioned, even in a general way, or the name of the "labs" commissioned (they always have a name, and a structure and a staff, etc).

          And "reagents"? What reagents, applied to what material, towards what aspect of tissue regeneration? THIS particular aspect would be the most interesting if it was ever described, over the past years of money collection. But it never has been. Other than "bull"

          Comment


          • #20
            Yes, Foregen is not directly performing the experiments themselves, they are not full blown medical professionals (thats not to say they are clueless though, just look at HUFO). By "morph" what is implied is they will be able to stop their marketing and other expenses that dip into the funds as soon as they have enough monthly funds to soley focus just on expierments. As you already know, they are under funded, that is problem number 1 right now. Yes, exactly they have a group of people that they have commissioned to do research and do the experiments that they have set up on Foregen's behalf, thats basically what I was trying to say by stating they "have an entire crew". Yes they are a collection group, who then uses that money to fund foreskin regeneration research and uses the rest for advertising and other expenses.

            During that time Foregen could not get access to human foreskin tissue, it was only after that they found a human foreskin tissue supplier. Bulls foreskins are dead cheap compared to a human foreskin, so it was the cheaper alternative aswell. "de-cellularized bull's foreskin isn't directly part of foreskin regeneration in any way" Actually it is, to regenerate a human foreskin, de-cellurlarization is the first step in acheiving regeneration using that method. They learned how to complete the first step in foreskin regeneration and how to properly de-cellurize flesh. They proved they are not all talk but actually have the capabilities to perform actual experiments. What they did was a Huge first step.

            A quote from Foregen "
            Bull foreskins were selected because of their thin and elastic properties which mimic that of the human foreskin"

            If you had to define what Foregen is, what they are about, what they do, how they do it, to a person who has no idea what they are about, how would you define Foregen to that person? Just curious, I want to know how you specifically view Foregen.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Info View Post
              So about half, according to........whoever. But a pie chart, along with my other concerns above, don't actually describe who those scientists are, even in a general way, or the name of the "labs". And "reagents"? What reagents, applied to what material, towards what aspect of tissue regeneration?
              The labs they do their experiments in are located at the University of Bologna. Dr. Cinzia Marchese is their lead scientist as of now, she has actually re-grew the internal vaginas of 27 women, which is directly related to foreskin regeneration. She works with the University of Bologna. As of reagents, I dont have a answer for you on that for I am not a scientist and I dont fully know what substance/specific stem cells they will be using on the matrizes to regenerate the de cellurized foreskins.

              I hope this clears things up a bit for you.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Plush1992 View Post
                Yes, Foregen is not directly performing the experiments themselves, they are not full blown medical professionals (thats not to say they are clueless though, just look at HUFO). By "morph" what is implied is they will be able to stop their marketing and other expenses that dip into the funds as soon as they have enough monthly funds to soley focus just on expierments. As you already know, they are under funded, that is problem number 1 right now. Yes, exactly they have a group of people that they have commissioned to do research and do the experiments that they have set up on Foregen's behalf, thats basically what I was trying to say by stating they "have an entire crew". Yes they are a collection group, who then uses that money to fund foreskin regeneration research and uses the rest for advertising and other expenses.

                During that time Foregen could not get access to human foreskin tissue, it was only after that they found a human foreskin tissue supplier. Bulls foreskins are dead cheap compared to a human foreskin, so it was the cheaper alternative aswell. "de-cellularized bull's foreskin isn't directly part of foreskin regeneration in any way" Actually it is, to regenerate a human foreskin, de-cellurlarization is the first step in acheiving regeneration using that method. They learned how to complete the first step in foreskin regeneration and how to properly de-cellurize flesh. They proved they are not all talk but actually have the capabilities to perform actual experiments. What they did was a Huge first step.

                A quote from Foregen "
                Bull foreskins were selected because of their thin and elastic properties which mimic that of the human foreskin"

                If you had to define what Foregen is, what they are about, what they do, how they do it, to a person who has no idea what they are about, how would you define Foregen to that person? Just curious, I want to know how you specifically view Foregen.
                1. Ah, a misuse of the word "medical". Always a sign that the user is removed from both medicine and pure research;

                2. HUFO is hardly a breakthrough, the anatomy of a human foreskin has been known for many, many decades. Are you saying Foregen didn't know this? I would think that this is new only to people who know nothing about it. A big model? You can find this information online easily; always could. I saw it, like another member of the old forum, as a hook to get more funding, not a "breakthrough". Weren't small models offered to the first to give money? Now, explaining what Foregen's role in tissue regeneration, other than making one model and collecting money, would've been better;

                3. It was your statement that "they" (Foregen) would "morph" into research. Not true, and not accurate, but it was your statement, not mine, so I responded to it;

                4. I can't make a definitive statement about what is or isn't available in the way of cadaver foreskin tissue in Europe, but I would think that European suppliers would have a surplus, but ... who knows....;

                5. Thing is, de-cellularizing tissue for its structural matrix is an established process known of, and done, by the big guys for awhile now. So why would anyone want to reinvent that wheel? Doesn't hang true; so because it's a known process is tissue regeneration experimentation, it isn't a first step that has anything to do with human foreskin. Was Foregen so removed from the mainstream that they weren't aware of this? ;

                6. I would explain Foregen as I have, and as you have, all along in this discussion: a money collecting group. I would add that they have switched a number of hats, from one to another over the years, from being a listing on the stock exchange (without offering any known research prospectus) early on, to promoting intactivism via HUFO, in contradiction with their statement that they don't see themselves as intactivists, then to being separate from mainstream research in their "goal" (never actually explained), yet somehow a part of it. How would I nut-shell that? All over the place, and difficult to believe.

                7. And no, I won't touch that "University of Bologna" thing. Difficult though

                Look, I'm just asking the questions any investor (for as long as that lasted), small scale funding, science knowledgeable person would ask of what amounts to a niche interest trying to stand next to (but apart from) a completely experimental field. That's the crux of it, right there: niche interest, no mainstream involvement. So far, little information has been given.
                Last edited by Info; 03-07-2016, 06:05 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Info View Post

                  1. Ah, a misuse of the word "medical". Always a sign that the user is removed from both medicine and pure research;

                  2. HUFO is hardly a breakthrough, the anatomy of a human foreskin has been known for many, many decades. Are you saying Foregen didn't know this? I would think that this is new only to people who know nothing about it. A big model? You can find this information online easily; always could. I saw it, like another member of the old forum, as a hook to get more funding, not a "breakthrough". Weren't small models offered to the first to give money? Now, explaining what Foregen's role in tissue regeneration, other than making one model and collecting money, would've been better;

                  3. It was your statement that "they" (Foregen) would "morph" into research. Not true, and not accurate, but it was your statement, not mine, so I responded to it;

                  4. I can't make a definitive statement about what is or isn't available in the way of cadaver foreskin tissue in Europe, but I would think that European suppliers would have a surplus, but ... who knows....;

                  5. Thing is, de-cellularizing tissue for its structural matrix is an established process known of, and done, by the big guys for awhile now. So why would anyone want to reinvent that wheel? Doesn't hang true; so because it's a known process is tissue regeneration experimentation, it isn't a first step that has anything to do with human foreskin. Was Foregen so removed from the mainstream that they weren't aware of this? ;

                  6. I would explain Foregen as I have, and as you have, all along in this discussion: a money collecting group. I would add that they have switched a number of hats, from one to another over the years, from being a listing on the stock exchange (without offering any known research prospectus) early on, to promoting intactivism via HUFO, in contradiction with their statement that they don't see themselves as intactivists, then to being separate from mainstream research in their "goal" (never actually explained), yet somehow a part of it. How would I nut-shell that? All over the place, and difficult to believe.

                  7. And no, I won't touch that "University of Bologna" thing. Difficult though

                  Look, I'm just asking the questions any investor (for as long as that lasted), small scale funding, scientce knowledgeable person would ask of what amounts to a niche interest trying to stand next to a completely experimental field. That's the crux of it, right there: niche interest, no mainstream involvement. So far, little information has been given.
                  #1 Haha Cmon, your better than this, If I was so removed from this issue and the research involved I dont think you would of wasted so much of your time replying to my comments

                  #3 Well their ultimate goal is to regenerate the foreskin, not to perform advertising or be apart of documentary's but they got to do what they got to do for more funds.

                  #5. It was a huge step because now they have all the tools available to go deeper into research. Dont they need De-cellurized foreskins to move onto other steps of research? They cant regenerate a foreskin without de-cellurizing one first, so I dont see how this is a proper point to attack them on. It had to be done to move onto other steps.

                  #6 Yes I see how you've arrived at that point and yes frankly Foregen is a bit of an odd ball association mainly because they've had to fight tooth and nail to get where they are today, like I said this whole organization started out with one guy and nothing more, so of course they've done odd things like put themselves on the stock market, but you live and learn, and they have and are still learning.

                  #7 The University of Bologna is where they do their experiments because the U.S is too highly regulated for them to even get access to a lab. Not much to debate there. Not much more information I can provide either for thats all I know.

                  I think what might be best is too create a non-biased thread on this site that simply states their mission statement, their prior history, their current progress, basic [email protected], and updated with new progress they make. A thread just stating the facts so people on this site can get an objective look at who and what Foregen is. As you said little information has been given so far, so why not create a thread thats just pure information based. No arguments, no rhetoric from either side, just the facts.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Plush1992 View Post

                    #1 Haha Cmon, your better than this, If I was so removed from this issue and the research involved I dont think you would of wasted so much of your time replying to my comments

                    #3 Well their ultimate goal is to regenerate the foreskin, not to perform advertising or be apart of documentary's but they got to do what they got to do for more funds.

                    #5. It was a huge step because now they have all the tools available to go deeper into research. Dont they need De-cellurized foreskins to move onto other steps of research? They cant regenerate a foreskin without de-cellurizing one first, so I dont see how this is a proper point to attack them on. It had to be done to move onto other steps.

                    #6 Yes I see how you've arrived at that point and yes frankly Foregen is a bit of an odd ball association mainly because they've had to fight tooth and nail to get where they are today, like I said this whole organization started out with one guy and nothing more, so of course they've done odd things like put themselves on the stock market, but you live and learn, and they have and are still learning.

                    #7 The University of Bologna is where they do their experiments because the U.S is too highly regulated for them to even get access to a lab. Not much to debate there. Not much more information I can provide either for thats all I know.

                    I think what might be best is too create a non-biased thread on this site that simply states their mission statement, their prior history, their current progress, basic [email protected], and updated with new progress they make. A thread just stating the facts so people on this site can get an objective look at who and what Foregen is. As you said little information has been given so far, so why not create a thread thats just pure information based. No arguments, no rhetoric from either side, just the facts.
                    No doubt in my mind that you ARE removed from tissue regeneration, from research in general, and particularly in so-called "foreskin regeneration" because that doesn't exist. Also no doubt, based on what you've posted in all your posts, that you are being vague on purpose, while you continue to say "they", referring to Foregen, as being active in this field, when they aren't in this field at all. And you've missed my point regarding a bull foreskin matrix vs what is already known, but then if you don't have a basic grasp of tissue regeneration as it actually exists in the real world, then you would. (And you missed my sneaky reference to U of B haha. You're gonna have to be quicker than that ).

                    As far as the idea about a "non-biased thread" goes, if you want a thread open to only you and other proponents of Foregen, it sounds a little like creating a "nobody can ask pointed questions based on comparisons with the real world field of tissue regeneration" thread. Forums are for discussing (by definition). I, for one, would want to keep that principle active. Anything else is just one-sided and biased, NOT non biased, in fact, towards your own purposes, rather than what others might think (and know, in my case). But whatever. People can read our discussion here and begin to form their own opinion. That's what it's all about, this forum thing.

                    The believers will always hope and believe, blindly usually, and the knowers will always question, not the least because we're aware of how much isn't known yet, particularly in this area.
                    Last edited by Info; 03-07-2016, 08:52 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      And here's something I'd forgotten about, but was reminded of just a few minutes ago by someone who works here, regarding a point Distalero made awhile back. He posted a link to a little discussed issue with tissue regeneration (Distalero knew his stuff), ie cell degradation and spontaneous cancer cell formation. Still a big issue in the field, as I've been told. So.......an impasse that nobody ever discusses, rarely the big guys in the know, and therefore never by the little guy over there next to the big foreskin model. Now THIS should be included in any thread, biased and locked, or open and questioning, along with all my other questions.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Info View Post
                        And here's something I'd forgotten about, but was reminded of just a few minutes ago by someone who works here, regarding a point Distalero made awhile back. He posted a link to a little discussed issue with tissue regeneration (Distalero knew his stuff), ie cell degradation and spontaneous cancer cell formation. Still a big issue in the field, as I've been told. So.......an impasse that nobody ever discusses, rarely the big guys in the know, and therefore never by the little guy over there next to the big foreskin model. Now THIS should be included in any thread, biased and locked, or open and questioning, along with all my other questions.
                        Good points - So in a nut shell skin generation is not up to scratch because it can and does degrade to cancer at this time, well that is going to be slight stumbling block as they bury their mistakes out the back.
                        At this time it is worse that vapor for foreskin ware with fancy marketing and finance behind it and no real game changing seismic leap into the future - as promised.

                        Maybe they should start a crowd fund for studding how lizards grow back their tails for more plausible research - but then a quantum leap is needed to apply it to foreskins.

                        As others have said - Never mind the complexity of re-attaching nerves and ones documented to have ceased functioning and atrophied - including the corresponding connections in the brain.
                        Reversing infant circ is not like an adult foreskin in an accident needing repair (we don't even have that technology correct yet either) When they can join nerves and spinal cords then this tech may be able to be able to be applied with some limited applications.

                        It's great to dream (or be lazy about tugging) - but some times things when too good to be true - end up in the world of reality being just a pipe dream.

                        Worthy goal - yes, but the human species has NOT got anywhere enough know how yet. suspect grand grand children will be 6ft under and this will still be going on unless the root cause is made illegal.


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by OzVic View Post

                          Good points - So in a nut shell skin generation is not up to scratch because it can and does degrade to cancer at this time, well that is going to be slight stumbling block as they bury their mistakes out the back..........

                          The tissue that research has grown doesn't always degrade and form cancer, which is good news, but it has done it enough times for it to be a risk. Wish I'd saved that link. I'll look for it, see if I can find it online; it's an issue that widens the perspective on tissue regeneration.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Ive answered your questions enough times, im now just clearly repeating myself. I already answered your question on the bulls foreskin and matrix to begin with but im starting to think no answer will be good enough or my very simple points have gone over your head. Yes de-cellurization has already been done before and it is already known how to do this, but that does not mean they can just skip that step. They (yes im using the word they) have to de-cellurize a foreskin to then learn how to re-cellurize it and go through the steps of trial and error.

                            Forums are for discussing but this thread has become completely useless. Nobody is going to come to this thread for information. You complain about a lack of information from an investors stand point but then when I bring up the idea of a thread dedicated to just posting facts, studies ect, you complain once again. Now you bring it a step further and free of evidence accuse me of wanting a circle jerk of a thread about Foregen where dissenting viewpoints are silenced. "open to only you and other proponents of Foregen" You are now attacking me for things I never stated and putting words into my mouth.

                            You have gone way past the point of being skeptical to just plain pessimistic. Foregen used to have forums themselves filled with people who "hope and believe, blindly usually" as you stated yet were already in very depth conversation about the same things you are bringing up and some of the problems with foreskin regeneration. Actually their conversations were in much further depth than in this thread yet according to you they are just fools who blindly follow and believe. Difference is they were actually helpful to the cause not detrimental. I mean when your attacking me for using the word "they" I think this conversation has lost any and all merit by this point. Id love to stick around and discuss things such has nerve regeneration and de-generation and cancer forming around newly developed regenerated tissue but id be insane for continuing on with this conversation and expecting a different result.

                            You accuse us Foregen supporters of being foolish and will believe anything (maybe so) when I think its the complete opposite, alot of you restorers on this site are known across the internet for being depressed little pessimist and when shown a small glimmer of light, you shut the shades.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Plush1992 View Post
                              Ive answered your questions enough times, im now just clearly repeating myself. I already answered your question on the bulls foreskin and matrix to begin with but im starting to think no answer will be good enough or my very simple points have gone over your head. Yes de-cellurization has already been done before and it is already known how to do this, but that does not mean they can just skip that step. They (yes im using the word they) have to de-cellurize a foreskin to then learn how to re-cellurize it and go through the steps of trial and error.

                              Forums are for discussing but this thread has become completely useless. Nobody is going to come to this thread for information. You complain about a lack of information from an investors stand point but then when I bring up the idea of a thread dedicated to just posting facts, studies ect, you complain once again. Now you bring it a step further and free of evidence accuse me of wanting a circle jerk of a thread about Foregen where dissenting viewpoints are silenced. "open to only you and other proponents of Foregen" You are now attacking me for things I never stated and putting words into my mouth.

                              You have gone way past the point of being skeptical to just plain pessimistic. Foregen used to have forums themselves filled with people who "hope and believe, blindly usually" as you stated yet were already in very depth conversation about the same things you are bringing up and some of the problems with foreskin regeneration. Actually their conversations were in much further depth than in this thread yet according to you they are just fools who blindly follow and believe. Difference is they were actually helpful to the cause not detrimental. I mean when your attacking me for using the word "they" I think this conversation has lost any and all merit by this point. Id love to stick around and discuss things such has nerve regeneration and de-generation and cancer forming around newly developed regenerated tissue but id be insane for continuing on with this conversation and expecting a different result.

                              You accuse us Foregen supporters of being foolish and will believe anything (maybe so) when I think its the complete opposite, alot of you restorers on this site are known across the internet for being depressed little pessimist and when shown a small glimmer of light, you shut the shades.
                              Oooo, a little angry here. And considering this is a foreskin restoration forum, a bit belittling of that whole practice and those of us who do it, and those who've finished, and do I need to say, finished with a tangible and functional result. We finished guys, and I'm one of them, have seen what's possible with our own efforts. It's not only not bad, in fact it's a whole order of better, and it's very real. But hey, don't leave in a huff, discuss. If you don't know what Foregen is actually doing, then find out and tell us about it. Keep the dialogue open. Or.......are "they" as silent with you as they are with us? We've actually received a bit more information from you than we have in the past.

                              All that aside, though, your definition of "skeptical" is yours, not mine or the next guy's. You're entitled to yours, but you can't control ours by getting huffy, nor should you. Skepticism is the healthy approach when you don't know much about a subject. But, as you're discovering, I wouldn't call myself skeptical about tissue engineering, and where it is currently, and I'm no more pessimistic than the pros. I'd call myself comparatively informed. I know more than you about it, and all the steps necessary for research and trial approval, and on to what is necessary for all the steps to be passed for a proven product to become available. If it ever does.

                              How am I informed? Because I've stayed relatively current with the articles and literature, I have a background in medical science, and I've had to deal with several aspects of the experimental nature of tissue engineering in a career of mine (this is where I became aware of El Distalero ).

                              That seems to be the difficulty you're having in this discussion. You seem to think that we "depressed little pessimist (sic)" are open to vague answers and handing over cash. Some guys are, some aren't. Maybe we seemed easy to you, but you can't bully those of us who aren't. I would have to say that if Foregen is on the up-and-up, and you either are, or want to be, a representative of theirs, then you aren't doing them a service with this kind of response. You've just alienated some of us, and you've undercut what credibility you had with some of us. So relax, keep the channel open. Info is my screen name because info is what I'm all about, so if you have some, I'm interested.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by OzVic View Post

                                Good points - So in a nut shell skin generation is not up to scratch because it can and does degrade to cancer at this time ....
                                I haven't been able to find that article yet, but I have found an abstract that touches on the issue. They're talking about embryonic stem cells here, which of course have a whole bunch of legal/moral issues attached, but embryonic stem cells are recognized as the best route to take because they specifically have the ability to differentiate into all the types needed to grow various organ tissues. Adult stem cells were the focus of that article I can't find (if I remember correctly), and they too have problems associated, with much less ability to differentiate into tissue, and they carry a lower purity issue, including a potential to become what is called teratomatic, leading to cancer.

                                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733374/

                                I'll keep looking. I found a really good overview of tissue engineering and the issues this experimental field brings to scientific research, so I'll add that when I get a chance.........................Hah! here it is:

                                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299182/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X