Jump to content

Photo

Sebaceous Gland Removal

makeup

This topic is archived.
229 replies to this topic

#41 Mark D.

Mark D.

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 29
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 11-May 05

Posted 27 September 2007 - 12:29 AM

I find this interesting. The main complaint while on Accutane for most
is skin that is too dry causing flakes, irritation, redness and so on. If
you remove all of your sebaceous glands you'll get the same thing,
only worse. Accutane's main role is reducing the size of the gland
and thus making it produce less oil. A secondary effect in that is
it reduces the food supply for bacteria & may be anti-bacterial.
Finally, it changes the keratinization behavior of the skin, so it
doesn't tend to clog as easily. But it's the first, the reduction
in oil output, causing folks the most 'troubles'. Think of that.
eusa_think.gif

#42 Panda_Day

Panda_Day

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 309
    Likes: 1
About Me
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New York
  • Joined: 04-March 07

Posted 06 October 2007 - 09:34 AM


I understand how someone with severe, nodular cystic acne could want this - saving physical & emotional scars, and the frustration that comes from trying to take care of your skin and have it sabotage you.

But there is no way in hell I would do it.

I now firmly 100% believe that acne is an autoimmune response to something that is WRONG with the human body. It's a warning signal, and unlike an appendectomy (which I have had by the way when I was 9 years old) which saves your life, acne won't kill you. It may drive you crazy, but is won't kill you.

It is an ugly but relatively benign disease, and it is your body telling you something is wrong! I mean, think about it - if you were in perfect health, do you think you would be breaking out?

In a way, I am thankful to have had acne, (well, not THAT thankful) but it did force me to make healthier lifestyle changes. Acne was one of the reasons I stopped smoking, stopped drinking, greatly cut down on caffeine as my main source of energy, and start really looking at the food I was putting in my body. Acne made me aware of the ingredients in cosmetics, and start eating organic food.

So go ahead people, remove your sebaceous glands, and you have my blessing. If you have tried everything else (including a raw diet) to no end, then I hope this works out for you. But be careful when you start removing things from your body that might be there for a reason....



#43 Smokeyjay

Smokeyjay

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 503
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 30-July 06

Posted 08 October 2007 - 08:40 PM

Sebum does have its uses. But its not necessary. Sebum contains cholestrol, proteins, some salts, and some other stuff to make your skin smoother and waterproof your skin from outside chemicals.

It also does have anti-bacterial/anti-fungal qualities. But all of this could be rectified through natural products and washing your face.


I don't see why destroying the sebaceous glands is not possible. They do the same with destroying sweat glands. But instead of sebum glands, they apparently inject needles into the sudoriferous glands (the sweat producing glands) so that you won't sweat.

The sudoriferous glands and sebum glands are both located in the dermis. I always wondered why they didn't do this before.

IMO sweat glands are more useful than sebum glands.

And the appendix is one example of a vestigial organ with no apparent use. Its a mark of our evolution that scientists believed was used to digest plant material, but now has no beneficial use now. The human body isn't perfect-in fact, it has a lot of imperfections but its able to adapt and thrive in the environment, which is what is most important.

#44 LiliVG

LiliVG

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 1,875
    Gallery Images: 1
    Likes: 2
About Me
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:United States
  • Joined: 28-September 06

Posted 09 October 2007 - 09:59 PM

actually now they think the appendix is there to ensure that the "good" bacteria are always present in the gut. It serves as a sort of safe house for the good guys incase you get an illness that wipes out all the good bacteria in your system. The the appendix just "reboots" your good bacteria population.

Anyway, if you removed your sebaceous glands your skin would be painfully dry, cracked, flaky, and more prone to infection in the cracks in your skin. It would be horrible, and it would be permanent. I would never do that.

#45 Smokeyjay

Smokeyjay

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 503
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 30-July 06

Posted 10 October 2007 - 10:33 PM

QUOTE(LiliVG @ Oct 9 2007, 10:59 PM) View Post
actually now they think the appendix is there to ensure that the "good" bacteria are always present in the gut. It serves as a sort of safe house for the good guys incase you get an illness that wipes out all the good bacteria in your system. The the appendix just "reboots" your good bacteria population.

Anyway, if you removed your sebaceous glands your skin would be painfully dry, cracked, flaky, and more prone to infection in the cracks in your skin. It would be horrible, and it would be permanent. I would never do that.



Hmmm, yes maybe.

But I don't think sebum is terribly complicated to make. You could make a laboratory imitation form maybe......

And before people state natural vs man-made. They would be the exact same chemicals down to the molecular molecule-meaning the exact same thing.

Or have some imitation moisturizer that does its best to mimic sebum.





#46 andersoj

andersoj

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 729
    Likes: 3
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:here
  • Joined: 05-December 05

Posted 12 October 2007 - 10:52 AM

QUOTE(LiliVG @ Oct 9 2007, 09:59 PM) View Post
Anyway, if you removed your sebaceous glands your skin would be painfully dry, cracked, flaky, and more prone to infection in the cracks in your skin. It would be horrible, and it would be permanent. I would never do that.


Why do you say this? For all I think any of us know the procedure could be virtually side effect free. The problem is that we don't know and while this speculation might be fun we won't be able to judge anything until we get in touch with the suspect spa goowaysang or whatever. What if this really is the breakthrough that so many of us have been waiting for? At this point I've kind of given up on it, because they won't get back to me, but still, it's a nice fantasy to entertain.

#47 near

near

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 837
    Likes: 1
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Outer Heaven
  • Joined: 01-December 06

Posted 16 October 2007 - 11:22 PM

QUOTE(Panda_Day @ Oct 6 2007, 11:34 AM) View Post
I understand how someone with severe, nodular cystic acne could want this - saving physical & emotional scars, and the frustration that comes from trying to take care of your skin and have it sabotage you.

But there is no way in hell I would do it.

I now firmly 100% believe that acne is an autoimmune response to something that is WRONG with the human body. It's a warning signal, and unlike an appendectomy (which I have had by the way when I was 9 years old) which saves your life, acne won't kill you. It may drive you crazy, but is won't kill you.

It is an ugly but relatively benign disease, and it is your body telling you something is wrong! I mean, think about it - if you were in perfect health, do you think you would be breaking out?

In a way, I am thankful to have had acne, (well, not THAT thankful) but it did force me to make healthier lifestyle changes. Acne was one of the reasons I stopped smoking, stopped drinking, greatly cut down on caffeine as my main source of energy, and start really looking at the food I was putting in my body. Acne made me aware of the ingredients in cosmetics, and start eating organic food.

So go ahead people, remove your sebaceous glands, and you have my blessing. If you have tried everything else (including a raw diet) to no end, then I hope this works out for you. But be careful when you start removing things from your body that might be there for a reason....


That is bullshit. Complete. Fucking. Bullshit. I have seen hundreds of people who smoke, drink, have very shitty fast food obsessive diets, never exercise, and long behold, CLEAR SKIN. I, on the other hand, bodybuild, which in term forces me to have a correct and clean diet. I'm too young to drink, and I find smoking a very disgusting act. Rarely do I eat fast food either, except when i'm on an emergency bulk, which rarely happens.

And you know what, my skin gets too damn oily way to damn fast. I'm getting this treatment some day if it recieves good testimonials, and i'm ending this bullshit once and for all.

#48 Sundaegirl

Sundaegirl

    Junior Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 71
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Joined: 28-September 07

Posted 17 October 2007 - 12:40 PM

I agree. Some people may have allergic reactions or food intolerances which causes them to break out but on the whole acne is not caused by an unhealthy lifestyle. If it was that simple acne would not exist!

#49 Jess

Jess

    WILD CARD

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 2,761
    Likes: 6
About Me
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Atlantic Beach, FL
  • Interests:Bonsai sculpture, rollerblading, member of the Jacksonville Roller Derby Girls Team, origami, entrepreneurship, volunteering, non profit organizations, self-improvement, nanotechnology, genetic patents, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Breaking Bad, Dexter, and other boss shows
  • Joined: 11-June 05

Posted 18 October 2007 - 01:28 PM

QUOTE(pop politics @ Sep 13 2007, 07:23 PM) View Post
My only reservation is that perhaps the Sebaceous Gland does still serve a functional, even required purpose, and by removing them we would be creating another problem. Something more complex, and somewhat irreversible. eusa_think.gif


I have the same reservation. It seems to me that since scientists can't even figure out how to cure acne........I'd be hesitant to put my trust in them to surgically remove my sebaceous glands.

Antibiotics are prescribed all day long for mild acne. I just read about a super-resistant strain of staph bacteria that may be killing more people than AIDS. Overuse of antibiotics may be contributing to the staph death toll. When I hear "sebaceous glands serve no purpose" I wonder how certain they can be of a statement like that.

But I have to admit, the idea does intrigue me smile.gif

#50 Smokeyjay

Smokeyjay

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 503
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 30-July 06

Posted 19 October 2007 - 12:34 AM

QUOTE(Jess @ Oct 18 2007, 02:28 PM) View Post
QUOTE(pop politics @ Sep 13 2007, 07:23 PM) View Post
My only reservation is that perhaps the Sebaceous Gland does still serve a functional, even required purpose, and by removing them we would be creating another problem. Something more complex, and somewhat irreversible. eusa_think.gif


I have the same reservation. It seems to me that since scientists can't even figure out how to cure acne........I'd be hesitant to put my trust in them to surgically remove my sebaceous glands.

Antibiotics are prescribed all day long for mild acne. I just read about a super-resistant strain of staph bacteria that may be killing more people than AIDS. Overuse of antibiotics may be contributing to the staph death toll. When I hear "sebaceous glands serve no purpose" I wonder how certain they can be of a statement like that.

But I have to admit, the idea does intrigue me smile.gif



I doubt that MRSA kills more than AIDs. Unless they only count deaths in Western countries.

The AIDS death toll in Africa and Asia is huge. Millions every year. But I haven't really looked it up, but I would be really surprised if that were true. If that occurred in any Western country, it would be an epidemic.

#51 Jess

Jess

    WILD CARD

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 2,761
    Likes: 6
About Me
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Atlantic Beach, FL
  • Interests:Bonsai sculpture, rollerblading, member of the Jacksonville Roller Derby Girls Team, origami, entrepreneurship, volunteering, non profit organizations, self-improvement, nanotechnology, genetic patents, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Breaking Bad, Dexter, and other boss shows
  • Joined: 11-June 05

Posted 19 October 2007 - 01:51 PM

Excellent point. I'm not sure the study was referring to AIDS deaths worldwide, but comparing it to the staph infection deaths within the US only.

QUOTE
Curb antibiotic use
If these deaths all were related to staph infections, the total would exceed other better-known causes of death including AIDS �" which killed an estimated 17,011 Americans in 2005 �" said Dr. Elizabeth Bancroft of the Los Angeles County Health Department, the editorial author.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21326497/

#52 The Great Reizo

The Great Reizo

    Andrew...The Android!

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 434
    Likes: 1
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Your moms house ;)
  • Interests:Buffy The Vampire Slayer, DBZ, Sailor Moon, Martial Arts and Military Tactics, Writing and Journalism, The Dictionary, Singing, Naked Mirror Dancing, Art, Computers, Video Games, Music Videos (Both viewing and making), Science, Metaphysics, Demonology, Religious Studies, Psychology and Daydreaming.<br /><br />Wanna know more? Hit me up and we'll talk!
  • Joined: 19-October 06

Posted 23 October 2007 - 08:10 AM

Alright, how bout a procedure to greatly shrink the glands? That would be spiffy. I mean think about it. We all know that no matter whether your acne is due to unruly shedding skin cells (retention hyperkeratosis), or lots of bacteria (P acnes), we DO know that these problems are greatly reduced by eliminating the oil problem. I think scientists should focus their efforts on creating more drugs that inhibit the production of sebum rather than treating the sub-causes of acne because it isn't as effective as taking out the root cause...Catch my drift? In a way people with sensitive skin types, myself included, would not have to suffer the possible scarring that accutane presents. Word up.

#53 acneblue

acneblue

    Junior Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 64
    Likes: 1
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Joined: 27-October 07

Posted 27 October 2007 - 06:53 AM

and of course the sebaceous gland alone is not responsible for acne. Hormone is another issue.

#54 andersoj

andersoj

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 729
    Likes: 3
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:here
  • Joined: 05-December 05

Posted 27 October 2007 - 11:31 AM

QUOTE(acneblue @ Oct 27 2007, 07:53 AM) View Post
and of course the sebaceous gland alone is not responsible for acne. Hormone is another issue.


I don't think sebacious glands are responsible for acne at all, but they are the vessel by which all the true internal culprits make it to the surface. So if we had our sebacious glands removed then our bodies would still be out of whack, they just wouldn't be able to let us and more importantly others know about.

#55 JimSta

JimSta

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 47
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas, TX
  • Joined: 20-September 07

Posted 30 October 2007 - 05:23 PM

QUOTE(acneblue @ Oct 27 2007, 07:53 AM) View Post
and of course the sebaceous gland alone is not responsible for acne. Hormone is another issue.


Whatever gets rid of acne is a-ok in my book smile.gif eusa_dance.gif


#56 bryan

bryan

    Senior Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 2,837
    Likes: 17
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Texas
  • Joined: 01-October 04

Posted 31 October 2007 - 04:27 PM

QUOTE(pop politics @ Sep 13 2007, 06:23 PM) View Post
Sebum, some people say, has absolutely no functional purpose. I believe they take the view that Sebaceous Glands are simply things with which Man has nullified a reqirement for through years of evolving, yet the organ is still physically there. It definately has no impact on one's visible aging.


Exactly. No less an authority than Albert M. Kligman MD, PhD (the most famous name in the history of dermatology) believes that sebaceous glands are "living fossils" in human beings. He says that sebum _may_ have served as a waterproofing agent for hair (or fur) in our early ancestors, but that is obviously no longer an issue. There is no known or proven function for sebum. We could do without it just fine.

#57 bryan

bryan

    Senior Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 2,837
    Likes: 17
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Texas
  • Joined: 01-October 04

Posted 31 October 2007 - 04:43 PM

QUOTE(andersoj @ Sep 24 2007, 06:27 PM) View Post
Just got bck from my accutane follow up and the derm I see for that also hasn't heard of the procedure, but was convinced that it would work at the price of dry skin, which I would easily take over acne.


What exactly did he mean by "dry skin"? Did he mean OILY-dry, or MOISTURE-dry? The presence or absence of sebum is not associated with the moisture content of skin. Here's an excerpt from an article on the physiology of skin that was published in a medical journal:

Sebum and Dry Skin "...skin can be healthy and have charming cosmetic properties in the virtual absence of sebum." (14)

Kligman drew attention to prepubertal children, who produce almost no sebum, to support his thesis that skin does not depend upon sebum for maintaining its barrier to water loss: "...there can be no doubt of the insignificance of sebum as a waterproofing material." (14) Our recent studies at the other end of the human age spectrum have supported this conviction. In a survey of sebum secretion rates and the incidence of dry skin among subjects aged 65 to 97, no correlation was found between sebaceous gland activity and the presence or severity of dry skin (34). Kligman recognized that sebum could mask the scaliness of dry skin without producing any actual change in the condition: "Sebum, like any oil, has some emollient or smoothing effect when a sufficient quantity is rubbed into dry, scaling skin." (14) In spite of the clear inference to be drawn from the cutaneous characteristics of children and the experimental data obtained from the elderly, it remains difficult to dispel the myth that low sebum secretion rates cause dry skin. It is a rare individual who realizes that "dry" is not the obverse of "oily".

(14) Kligman AM: The uses of sebum. Br J Dermatol 75: 307-319, 1963

(34) Frantz RA, Kinney CK, Downing DT: A study of skin dryness in the elderly. Nursing Res 35: 98-100, 1986.

#58 bryan

bryan

    Senior Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 2,837
    Likes: 17
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Texas
  • Joined: 01-October 04

Posted 31 October 2007 - 04:59 PM

QUOTE(Po-ta-toes @ Sep 26 2007, 07:02 PM) View Post
sebaceous glands are however there for a good reason. to produce sebum..."Sebum acts to protect and waterproof hair and skin, and keep them from becoming dry, brittle and cracked. It can also inhibit the growth of microorganisms on skin."


Apparently, not even a single one of those claims is true. Read the following excerpt from a medical journal article:

"Sebum Secretion and Sebaceous Lipids", Stewart et al, Dermatologic Clinics -- Vol. 1, No. 3, July 1983 (BTW, the "Kligman" they refer to in the text below is Dr. Albert M. Kligman, MD, PhD, one of the most famous names in the history of dermatology):

"Sebum is an oily substance that is secreted onto the skin surface from glands located in the dermis. Although a number of useful functions have been proposed for sebum, proof that sebum performs any of them is lacking. In furred mammals an essential function of sebum is to supply 7-dehydrocholesterol, which is converted to vitamin D by the action of sunlight and then ingested by the animal as it grooms itself. In man, however, the location of 7-dehydrocholesterol has been shown to be the epidermis rather than sebum. Sebum may act as a waterproofing agent for fur, but humans obviously have little need for this function. Kligman has specifically disproved the notions that sebum improves the barrier function of skin, that sebum helps to regulate the water content of the horny layer by forming emulsions with sweat, or that sebum on the skin surface is fungistatic or antibacterial.(21) Kligman regards the human sebaceous glands as 'living fossils' that lost their usefulness to our species as we lost our fur.(21)

(21) Kligman, A. M.: The uses of sebum? In Montagna, W., Ellis, R. A., and Silver, A. F. (eds.): Advances in the Biology of Skin. Volume 4. Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1963."


#59 Grinder

Grinder

    New Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 18
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 01 November 2007 - 11:45 AM

Sounds interesting. Thanks for the find and posting it here. =)

#60 Guest**00999

Guest**00999

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 39
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 02-August 07

Posted 11 February 2008 - 07:35 PM

Hello fellow acne sufferers. I came upon this thread by chance. I have finished my second accutane course about 1.5 months ago. And have started to have a few small pimples forming. It is a concern of mine that the acne will return slowly like it did after my first course. It is for this reason that I have searched for alternative therapies as a precautionary measure. I was delighted to have come across this thread, as I am of Korean ancestory, and my mother speaks fluent Korean. I had my mother call the clinic and have recieved some stellar news that I would like to share with those interested. Upon explaining my circumstance, the doctor explained that I would need 5 to 6 treatments and that the sebacious function of my skin would be dramatically and permanently impaired. Now, 5 or 6 treatments with several weeks in between would be very hard to do for most americans. I am in the position to where it would not be an issue, but I understand that is not the case for most. So the good news is that this particular clinic is opening up a new branch in Beverly Hills, and will be performing this procedure here in the US. I have a phone consultation scheduled with the head doctor in three days, and I will get far more detailed information on success rates, cost, and safety. Take care, I will keep you all informed.