Re: Diet and triggers/Genetics

[Guest guest]

As I have begun to question the so-called trigger effect on the

progression of rosacea, I am still confronted by what exactly the

underlying pathogenesis of the disease can be. I have read that

rosacea can run in families, which may suggest a genetic basis,

although families may experience similar environments. I am wondering

if seperated twin studies have been conducted.

The genetic genesis, or at least predisposition, of the disease

is somewhat difficult for me to digest considereing I come fairly

large families, on both sides, and I am the only one visible afflicted

or diagnosed with rosacea. Even if it were merely a genetic

predisposition, in a family of so many, I would think the odds of more

than one member developing rosacea would be likely.

Which takes me to my next idea, what sort of evidence is there of

a history for the disease. Has it been around for centuries? Is it

new? Has it been around, but now has increased numbers of those

suffering?

Deryk

[Guest guest]

As I have begun to question the so-called trigger effect on the

progression of rosacea, I am still confronted by what exactly the

underlying pathogenesis of the disease can be. I have read that

rosacea can run in families, which may suggest a genetic basis,

although families may experience similar environments. I am wondering

if seperated twin studies have been conducted.

The genetic genesis, or at least predisposition, of the disease

is somewhat difficult for me to digest considereing I come fairly

large families, on both sides, and I am the only one visible afflicted

or diagnosed with rosacea. Even if it were merely a genetic

predisposition, in a family of so many, I would think the odds of more

than one member developing rosacea would be likely.

Which takes me to my next idea, what sort of evidence is there of

a history for the disease. Has it been around for centuries? Is it

new? Has it been around, but now has increased numbers of those

suffering?

Deryk

[Guest guest]

Deryk, your question about twin studies and genetic studies is great.

I'll check around and see if I can come up with anything even

marginally related. And Matija is a whiz at her Web searches.

One of my favorite artists, Rembrandt, clearly had rosacea in his

self-portraits. (That's not why I enjoy his work so much, but it

helps. )

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

>

> As I have begun to question the so-called trigger effect on the

> progression of rosacea, I am still confronted by what exactly the

> underlying pathogenesis of the disease can be. I have read that

> rosacea can run in families, which may suggest a genetic basis,

> although families may experience similar environments. I am

wondering

> if seperated twin studies have been conducted.

> The genetic genesis, or at least predisposition, of the disease

> is somewhat difficult for me to digest considereing I come fairly

> large families, on both sides, and I am the only one visible

afflicted

> or diagnosed with rosacea. Even if it were merely a genetic

> predisposition, in a family of so many, I would think the odds of

more

> than one member developing rosacea would be likely.

> Which takes me to my next idea, what sort of evidence is there

of

> a history for the disease. Has it been around for centuries? Is it

> new? Has it been around, but now has increased numbers of those

> suffering?

>

> Deryk