Jump to content


Member Since 23 May 2012
Offline Last Active Dec 06 2012 09:26 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Why Can't The Sebum Just Be Physically Taken Out Of The Follicle?

06 December 2012 - 06:34 PM

Sebum is actually a nesscary body thing. It helps us retain elasticity, (preventing wrinkles), prevents dryness (which helps wounds heal faster and regenerate new cells.) The problem is those of us with acne often have an over-production of it. We've had lots of members attempt sebum-reducing regimens - if you do a search, you might have some luck. The procedure you posted looks interesting. It looks expensive, too.

Yes, I know Sebum is essential, and I am not saying to kill the cells of all (or any) of the sebaceaous glands, but I'm wondering why can't it just simply be vacuumed out. Those glands will still produce sebum of course, after you get rid of the blockage in the follicle that is causing the acne. It would no more stop your body from producing sebum then taking a shower would prevent your water heater from refilling with water.

Actually, this seems to be more along the lines of what I mean, apparently there is a treatment like I am describing


I know you say we produce more sebum, but the problem seems/is twofold, first there is a blockage (which can occur at ANY time of our lives, not just around puberty) from there, the sebum gets stuck, the bacteria multiply and you can an inflammation of the skin, blackout, whitehead, pustule, cyst, whatever. Some drugs do work by killing the bacteria, but I don't understand why. Simply killing the bacteria wouldn't clear the blockage for the sebum to get out, and once you stop taking it, wouldn't the bacteria that survived, regrow, and re-inflame the skin (and could possibly be worse now than before since they may now be immune to the anti biotic)

In Topic: Regeneration

29 May 2012 - 04:42 PM

Animals do scar (im sure you have seen atleast one dog with a scar on its face), but I didnt know yuo were specifically talking about regeneration of starfish,

Starfish are different. They have radial symmetry and can regenerate an entirely new starfish. I don't think this would be possible with a human (or desirable either I wouldn't want more than one me running around)

University of Montreal researchers have identified a gene that allows limb regeneration in the axolotl, a salamander that lives in Mexican lakes.

The gene, called TGF-beta 1, controls the generation and movement of new cells, and allows the axolotl to regrow complex structures like limbs, tail, jaw, spinal cord and even parts of its brain.

Humans also have this gene. The difference is that in humans, instead of telling a limb to regenerate, the gene tells the wounded area to heal and form a scar. If scientists can find a way to manipulate TGF-beta in humans, it could lead to the ability to regrow organs and limbs, as well as treatments for spinal cord injury and severe burns.

No word on whether we will also grow our own feather boas.

In the study, the scientists used a drug that inhibited the gene in axolotls. The treated axolotls couldn’t regrow their limbs, proving that TGF-beta plays a role in regeneration.


But like I originally said ,we are close to regenerating scar tissue with the help of stem cells

The newt has stem cells in it's body, as do planeria and starfish. Here's a very good lecture on it (an hour long though) It involves that gene you mentioned.

In Topic: Regeneration

25 May 2012 - 09:39 PM

animals do scar as well, im not sure what would you give the idea that they dont.

I'm confused here, you did read what I wrote, correct? Yes, animals that don't have regeneration do scar. But say a laceration into the dermis of a newt would not heal the same way a human's wound would. It would put it back exactly as it was before. It can regenerate lost limbs, and other parts, though not all.

More specifically