Talk:Rosacea/Archive 1

The

The original article was taken from http://www.niams.nih.gov/hi/topics/rosacea/rosacea.htm "This booklet is not copyrighted. Readers are encouraged to duplicate and distribute as many copies as needed"--Clawed 23:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Complete rewrite

THIS PAGE SHOULD BE REWRITTEN FROM SCRATCH. It is way below par. I applaud those of you undertaking this rewrite.192.211.24.90 (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am working on a complete rewrite of this article. If anyone would like to help, edit the new article at [1].--Clawed 06:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) The current version is the rewritten version.--Clawed 06:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there a better photo of Rosacea out there? This is a pretty useless one in terms of showing what it actually looks like.

I agree, that photo is terrible. 72.69.86.55 14:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree - with the picture and also rewriting this page - pretty awful in terms of facts and rationalized information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.104.204.79 (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Opening

"common but often misunderstood condition that is estimated to affect over 45 million people worldwide"

Not a very encyclopediac way to open it. It should exmplain what kind of condition it is before it mentions how many people have it and the fact that it's misunderstood! Passdoubt | Talk 00:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"Unless it affects the eyes, it is typically a harmless cosmetic condition. " I think this statement should be removed. Just as one example, untreated rosacea can cause rhinophyma which is not a cosmetic only condition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinophyma Seadark (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

UCSD researchers discover cause of rosacea

“Too much SCTE and too much cathelicidin leads to the abnormal peptides that cause the symptoms of this disease,” said Gallo. “Antibiotics tend to alleviate the symptoms of rosacea in patients because some of them work to inhibit these enzymes. Our findings may modify the therapeutic approach to treating rosacea, since bacteria aren’t the right target.” [2] Brian Pearson 00:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

LA Times article on what is now believed to be the cause

Someone might want to update the article? From http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-rosacea6aug06,0,1305081.story?coll=la-home-center Brentt

---

Mystery solved: rosacea's cause uncovered Researchers found that the blotchy skin condition develops when an abundance of a protein called cathelicidin is present. By Alison Williams, Times Staff Writer 4:40 PM PDT, August 5, 2007

Researchers have solved a medical mystery that has eluded them for hundreds of years, demonstrating that an abundance of abnormal skin proteins causes the blotchy skin condition called rosacea.

In a study published Sunday in the online edition of the journal Nature Medicine, scientists showed that people with rosacea have too much of a protein called cathelicidin that was processed incorrectly.

The results could aid researchers in designing an effective treatment for the disease, which affects 14 million people in the United States.

"We haven't had this kind of important finding in the study of rosacea for a long time," said dermatologist Jenny Kim of UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine, who was not involved in the study.

Rosacea is a skin disease that causes redness, visible blood vessels, bumps and pimples on the face. It tends to strike more women, usually between the ages of 30 and 60, but men often have more severe symptoms.

"It's an appearance-related disease, so many people suffer from low self-esteem, and that can affect their everyday life," Kim said.

Options for treatment include light therapy to decrease redness, avoiding known triggers such as spicy foods and heat, and prescribing antibiotics that don't work for every patient.

"Treatment could now be much more rationally designed," said Dr. Richard L. Gallo, chair of dermatology at UC San Diego and senior author of the study.

About a dozen years ago, researchers in Gallo's lab discovered cathelicidin proteins, which help defend against skin infections. Gallo and his colleagues went on to find an association between the protein and skin conditions such as eczema.

The team later found that cathelicidin could cause the redness that is the hallmark of rosacea, so they started searching for a link.

The researchers took skin biopsies from 11 people with rosacea and 10 without who served as controls. What they found was "a double hit of things going abnormally," Gallo said.

All of the rosacea patients had too much cathelicidin, most of which was abnormal. There was also an abundance of a molecule that processes cathelicidin from an inactive to an active form. The way cathelicidin is processed is crucial to determining whether the protein will act as a defense against infection or promote inflammation, according to the study.

Experiments on mice confirmed their theory.

One of the most common treatments for rosacea is the antibiotic tetracycline. The study suggests that the drug is successful in rosacea patients because it inhibits cathelicidin processing, not because of its bacterial-killing properties. Future treatments might also target the excessive production of cathelicidin's precursor, Gallo said.

May not be a good idea to post an entire article. I may quote what could be called 'fair use' with a link to the source, but beyond that, I don't. Also, you check previous comments, you might see there is already something about it.

Also, it's advisable to sign notes. If you become a member, the sig can be done with four tildes, which will also show the time and date of the note. I always like to hit the preview button in case I don't make sense or do something else dumb. Brian Pearson 00:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

'Gin blossoms'

Gin blossom directs to this page, but it is not mentioned at all. I'd add something if I knew anything about the history of rosacea being connected to this term, but I don't; therefore just posting a note for future rewrites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherchez la Femme (talk • contribs) 18:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Cherchez la Femme (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Need your help

An anonymous IP editor has been inserting banned links to a Yahoo! Groups chat board in several related articles. Links to online discussion groups are not encyclopedic. They are banned (item 11) in the external links policy. I have left a note for the anon editor, but I'm not sure it will do any good. If you see these links being reinserted into this article, would you please take them out again? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I'm that "anonymous IP editor". I'm trying to make it known that a cure for rosacea does exist, but the "wiki" rules and requirements seem a bit overwhelming to me. My statement is simple; namely: "There is now a treatment/CURE for rosacea, [DMSO + fluconazole], used both topically and INGESTED. This is the only known cure for rosacea, and this [DMSO + fluconazole] med also cures a wide variety of other hitherto-incurable diseases. The specifics of this cure are to be found at the Yahoo group named "rosacea-cure"." Can anyone help me give this info to "wiki"? I do not know how to refer someone to the rather extensive info about this [DMSO + fluconazole] cure, without referring to the Yahoo group where it is posted. Please bear in mind that there are those connected to making money from rosacea, who may try to block this info from being available at "wiki". Thanks for any help you can give in this matter. 208.255.117.195 (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Can you indicate a reference we can use for this information? A medical journal article would be ideal, but a newspaper article or similar would also suffice. - Ehheh (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I consider myself competent, but how would YOU promote a cure that is being denied by the USA medical community, while it appears that some of them are actually using it, in a way that will guarantee them long-term, huge profits, while denying this inexpensive cure to the masses? I explain some of this at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rosacea-cure/message/285 I know of no medical journals or newspaper articles that promote this [DMSO + fluconazole] cure, but it's quite REAL, and VALID, nevertheless. If you would be so kind as to read at least the listed posts on the homepage of the [rosacea-cure] pages, at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rosacea-cure , then perhaps you can help me find a way to make this cure "presentable" to "wiki". I realize that's a lot of reading, but since you probably would benefit from using this cure, (since most of mankind would), I assure you it's worth your time. Thank you for any attention you can give this matter. 208.255.117.195 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it won't be 'presentable' to Wikipedia until it's written about in a third party publication because the Wikimedia foundation has set us a non-negotiable policy that requires information in Wikipedia be independently verifiable. - Ehheh (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. My invitation to you, (and to anyone else who is interested, at "wiki"), is still extended. Please just see the info at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rosacea-cure/message/285 My opinion, is that you will never have any other such opportunity, to help literally BILLIONS of people, by expediting the good news of this [DMSO + fluconazole] cure to all mankind, and thereby prevent and/or shorten suffering. I WILL CHECK THIS "WIKI-ROSACEA TALK" PAGE, PERIODICALLY IN THE FUTURE, in the hope of any suggestions or help you might offer. Thanks in advance, for any future, comprehensive help you might be led to offer, concerning this incredible "cure-situation". 208.255.117.195 (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ehheh is entirely right. Wikipedia does not publish what is True™; it publishes what is verifiable. Your best bet for getting this cure into Wikipedia is to convince someone to write a story about it. So, for example, go talk to the dermatology group at your nearest medical school, and see if they are aware of any studies on the subject. Perhaps if there aren't, then they would actually run a formal study to see if it worked. It doesn't seem like it would be a particularly difficult or expensive study to run. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestions, and I have read the "wiki" page on verifiability. But dermatologists are not likely to promote a cure that will essentially put them out of business. And actually, it would be a nightmarishly difficult "study", for many reasons; for one, this cure includes all the vagaries of our "immune-system activity", (including very long-term, cascade effects), which so-called "clinical-studies" are least capable of quantifying or qualifying. And so, once again, I am pleading with anyone there at "wiki" to read the material at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rosacea-cure/message/285 , along with the associated posts. With your extensive experience, I'm just praying that you might conceive of some approach to the problem of promoting this cure, that would cope with the realities of this situation. Thank you kindly, for any attention you might give to this matter. I will continue to periodically check this (talk page). 208.255.117.195 (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposition that dermatologists would shun an effective treatment for financial reasons. There are tens of thousands of dermatologists in the world, and some of them have rosacea themselves: can you really pretend that every single one of them would suppress useful information? Every single one of them would rather have a few unhappy patients than to be famous? This is as unbelievable as the idea that cancer researchers know the cure for cancer, but would rather have their mothers, spouses, and children die from cancer than lose the revenue stream. Hint: physicians (outside of Japan) don't make any money at all from drugs they prescribe. Second hint: Even if rosacea disappeared from the earth by an act of Almighty God tonight, the dermatologists would have no trouble filling their appointment books tomorrow. Rosacea is not the mainstay of dermatology practice. I sincerely suggest that you consider why this kind of conspiracy theory seems plausible to you.

Secondly, I have read the information at the link, and I consider the message itself to be badly written, rambling garbage and the treatment it promotes to be entirely unproven.

Thirdly, even if it were the miraculous medical discovery of the century, Wikipedia is not the right place to be promoting it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a breaking-news or original-research publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, "Whatamidoing", I should thank you, for your interest and response, in this most urgent matter. Or should I? I'm surprised at your extensive interest, and obviously biased, extensive, overbearing opinions in this matter. Or am I? But then, part of the obvious premise in this situation, is that "Big-Pharma", status- quo persons would have embedded themselves at wiki, with the dedicated purpose of preventing a pervasive cure such as [DMSO + fluconazole] from seeing the light of day. You sound like you could be such a person. Are you? Otherwise, you're not making much sense. Your exact past statement was, "go talk to the dermatology group at your nearest medical school", but you've now changed that, to, "There are tens of thousands of dermatologists". The "group" at the "medical school" would indeed tend to be status-quo, (like you?), although they would certainly be capable of secretly applying this cure for their loved ones. So all your rant, including the cancer-cure tripe, looks like your inept attempt at a smokescreen for your INABILITY TO GIVE ANY HELPFUL ADVICE IN THIS MATTER. Is it? Even someone with a double-digit IQ can discern that physicians can own stock in the companies making the drugs they prescribe, (even in Japan). Why don't you know that, "Whatamidoing"? And rosacea IS the mainstay of derms working in IPL/laser. Even you should be able to discern that. So, I do appreciate your "input" such as it is. And I do understand the dilemma. That's just the point. My plea has been, "CAN YOU HELP", not "can you criticize, all-knowing "Whatamidoing". And obviously, I was hoping that SOMEONE, ANYONE at wiki would offer some valid, helpful advice, which you don't seem to be capable of doing. BTW, that message at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rosacea-cure/message/285 may ramble at times, but I'm not trying to find out how to place "rambling garbage" at wiki, so I don't see why you would go out of your way, to criticize. Is it because you have a biased, status-quo agenda, or are you just a mean-spirited person?

Once again, I will repeat, that I'm ASKING FOR HELP, ASKING ANYONE AT WIKI, WHO IS CAPABLE OF GIVING ANY HELPFUL ADVICE CONCERNING PLACING KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CURE AT WIKI, "Thank you kindly, for any attention you might give to this matter. I will continue to periodically check this (talk page)".

PS - (Personal to "Whatamidoing") --- Have you ever had athlete's foot? (I believe that's a rhetorical question, since just about everyone has.) If so, this [DMSO + fluconazole] cure is the only way to actually completely cure it, and thereby stop the chronic mycotoxins from affecting your entire lifetime. But there's a secret to the method of treatment, that I'll only send you if you HELP ME IN THIS MATTER. Otherwise, you can continue to read the [rosacea-cure] board, where it will most likely appear in the future. Bear in mind that those chronic mycotoxins may kill you, by causing some idiopathic disease such as cancer, so this is not as light a matter as you might think. 208.255.117.195 (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You say that you want "helpful advice concerning placing knowledge of this cure at Wiki." I have already given you all the help you can expect: Unless and until a reliable source publishes your claimed cure, then there is no room for it on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've only received (negative) responses, and only from YOU, "Whatamidoing", which I'm hoping and praying are NOT all I can expect, from wiki. In a situation of this type of urgency, it's hard for me to believe that specifically formulated EXCEPTIONS don't exist, at wiki. Also, although you do not know how, SOMEONE ELSE at wiki may know someway(s) to promote this extraordinary cure, (DMSO + fluconazole), to expedite this knowledge reaching mankind sooner. Are you blocking that possibility? Since I don't know the "inner workings" of wiki, I don't know why you're the only one who's responded to me. WHY HAS NO ONE ELSE RESPONDED? To give an example of EXCEPTION, Dr. Syrokomsky, at: http://www.dr.syrokomskyy.com/ has posted a lot of impressive cure-evidence, but he does not admit to using these (DMSO + fluconazole) ingredients. But the identical nature of the claims at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rosacea-cure/ would be evidence that would tend to substantiate the experiential claims I'm making for (DMSO + fluconazole). I know it's a stretch, but that's the point --- what means DO exist to promote this cure? You have only told me what is NOT possible, and you have cunningly introduced the wiki buzz-term, "conspiracy theory". Surely those embedded at wiki must know that some conspiracies of suppression-of-knowledge DO INDEED EXIST. Since this is one of those cases, and wiki is all about (accurate) knowledge, what CAN BE DONE in a case such as this one? And please respond only if SOMEONE at wiki has some POSITIVE MEANS of promoting this cure, since "Can't" has never accomplished ANYTHING, EVER. 208.255.117.195 (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, when there is a source available for verification we can put it in. In this case that most likely means a medical journal or a newspaper article. There are no exceptions to the verifiability policy. Wikipedia is not for publishing original information, it is merely here to neutrally summarize what the media and scientific establishment say about a given topic. Sometimes that means things are omitted - this is unfortunate but unavoidable. - Ehheh (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Unfortunate", in this particular case, is an extreme understatement, to say the least. My invitation remains open, to ANYONE ELSE AT WIKI, who might know SOME POSITIVE MEANS of accomplishing the promotion of this (DMSO + fluconazole) cure. It's a real jaw-dropper, to say the least. I do appreciate your time and attention in this matter, and your probable impatience, with the questions I've raised, which no doubt you've covered before, in so many prior cases. I will continue to access this talk page, in the hope that you, "Ehheh" and "Whatamidoing" are not the only ones seeing my plea, and that SOMEONE at wiki might have some "personal knowledge" that might make a "breakthrough" possible, in this matter. Thank you, in advance, for that "breakthrough" info. 208.255.117.195 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

Really? this is the image we have? I mean... am I the only person who thinks this an awful image?--Matt D (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty bad, an actual picture of someone with rosacea framed like the one on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek would be more appropriate. I would snap one myself, but I personally do not know anyone who suffers from this condition. Aksuman (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a Photoshop filter to bring out the relevant details on all computer screens. It's actually quite difficult to get something obvious that works on every computer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Kallikrein kinin system and vascular problems

I am completely fascinated with hypersensitivity of neurons in the kallikrein-kinin system from the digestive tract, in the role of rosacea... I truly wish that this area would be studied more as I know this would help many people. These are the 2 paragraphs from the article that I'm referring to : " It has also been suggested that rosacea might be a neurological disorder resulting from hypersensitization of sensory neurons following activation of the plasma kallikrein-kinin system by exposure to intestinal bacteria in the digestive tract."[13]

"Rosacea is a systemic disease. There is no study or metaanalysis that shows a long-term benefit of topical treatment. Typical signs in the facial region or the chest are always accompanied by other symptoms. The vascular disfunction provoke local hypoxemia (face, extremities, bowels). Sometimes these minor symptoms remain unrecognized. Vascular disfunction, hypoxemia and the temporal obstruction of the orthograde intestinal passage induce a vicious circle with maldigestion and bacterial overgrowth syndrome."

I'm confused about the part about vascular dysfunction in rosacea causing indigestion... and stomach pain. Are they saying that rosacea causes or is part of the vascular dysfunction that can wreak havoc on your vascular function? Why is that part of chronic rosacea not part of the discussion about rosacea in clinics and doctors offices? I have rosacea and that makes complete sense, as does the kallikrein-kinin dysfunction, but why isn't that discussed more often? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestedperson (talk • contribs) 02:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

C1 Inhibitor protein deficincy produces excess vasodilator bradykinin

I was reading modernmedicine.com when I came across an article that described a patient with C1 inhibitor deficiency and that it can produce excess of the potent vasodilator bradykinin... and cause facial flushing. I've read that vasodilation can cause rosacea and migraines or both. I wonder if the anecdote to this could help some rosacea sufferes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestedperson (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rosacea and neurological problems

Here is a very interesting article about neurological problems and rosacea called "A NOVEL METHOD FOR INDUCING REMISSION IN ROSACEA AND A NEW HYPOTHESIS TO ACCOUNT FOR ITS AETIOLOGY"by S. Kendall. I find this facinating. I would also like to suggest that bradykinin causes behavioral problems that have previosly been unidentified or poorly understood. Here is the link about rosacea/neurological problems. This has also been published. Here is the pubmed link also. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15115515?dopt=Citation> <http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/rosacea-support/message/47845> click here to read the whole article for free. (One more to a website called blackwell-synergy. Had to remove it during archival because it was triggering the blacklist. See history of Talk:Rosacea to get the full link) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestedperson (talk • contribs) 6:07, 27 March 2008

External links

Wikipedia's external links policy and the specific guidelines for medicine-related articles do not permit the inclusion of external links to non-encyclopedic material, particularly including: patient support groups, personal experience/survivor stories, internet chat boards, e-mail discussion groups, recruiters for clinical trials, healthcare providers, fundraisers, or similar pages.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising opportunity or a support group for patients or their families. Please do not re-insert links that do not conform to the standard rules.

External links are not required in Wikipedia articles. They are permitted in limited numbers and in accordance with the policies linked above. If you want to include one or more external links in this article, please link directly to a webpage that provides detailed, encyclopedic information about the disease. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it sounds like you have too much time on your a** if you think you can verify that an encyclpodic link is unencyclopedic. Please demonstrate conclusively how this link is not encyclopedic or scientific. It has published material by registered medical doctors. I know a lot of crackers are trying to limit the scientificity of wikipedia, but seriously, maybe they ought to do a little more thorough research. Tell me what you "think". http://www.rosaceagroup.org/QandA/ Teetotaler 30 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Small bowel overgrowth

Small trial suggesting that it's all got to do with bacterial overgrowth. PMID 18456568. JFW | T@lk 10:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether microbial gut imbalance is causative but methanogens are archaea, not bacteria. I made at least some of the appropriate edits. This isn't being pedantic: calling an "archaeon" a "bacterium" is substantially more absurd than calling a "potato" a "dog" much less a "picture of a pipe" a "pipe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.232.163 (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide view

I was about to change the "African-American and Hispanics" language to something less focused on the Americas, when it occurred to me to wonder whether I'm missing something. If this is a genetic condition that originated among Northern Europeans, then Africans and Asians without European ancestors won't have it. Many African-Americans and Latinos have one or more European ancestors. Does anyone know? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't know if it "originated" it merely "predominates" within the Northern European population. Northern Europeans get sickle cell anemia. Very, very few of them but the mutation does occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.232.163 (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

blog on Rosacea

this is a great blog for Rasacea [3]> some good stuff. http://www.reverta.com/blog/Punkinstink1 (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But like most blogs neither has any accreditation of author (although I agree writes in a nice engaging style) or of sources used - so WP:EL would apply to not including it in the article. David Ruben ^Talk 10:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)