Just had a Dr. visit and I'm pretty confused

[Guest guest]

Hi everyone!

I was diagnosed with rosacea(at age 35) from my very well respected,

long time dermatologist in Orlando Fl.(Anybody know Randall B.

Coverman?). He prescribed metro-lotion and I was good to go.

I have since moved to Houston TX about 1.5 years ago(age 38). My

metro-lotion has been expired for a well over a year and I wanted a

re-fresher, so I made an appointment. I explained the situation to

the Dr. and she immediately said... " You don't have rosacea, you have

sun damage -- you need laser treatments " . I kept pointing the fact

that I have some minor acne lesions on my nose and at the same time I

am wondering how the laser surgery will supress my acne. She said

that the laser treatments would take all of the red out and

effectively *replace* the metro-lotion. In the same sentence she

made a reference to the fact that I could waste money on the lotion

or get the laser surgery and " be done with it " .

What is she trying to say here? I always thought that the laser

treatments were supposed to treat the effect, not the cause. Is she

just trying to profit from my ignorance about rosacea?

Anyway, I asked her for some metro lotion and in the papers I left

with a prescription was not included. Just some literature and some

free samples of Alpha hydroxide. I feel like I paid someone to give

me a sales pitch. Is she right? Is laser surgery the wat to go?

Thanks!

Greg