Re: coherence in tripwires

[Guest guest]

> As to the chocolate allergy flush, I don't see how your comments on

> my 'belief system' would be an attack.

Brady, whether you see it or not, please respect that I'm not

interested in discussing your belief in chocolate allergy flushes.

> My view that sugar is a factor in rosacea flare-ups and how the NRS

> and the AMA refuse to list sugar as a possible tripwire is possibly

> one thing I can think of that you may have issue with? What else?

The AMA has a list of rosacea tripwires?

Please don't guess what I may have issues with. You've been very

generous in sharing your perspective with me over the past few

months, and I really have given them serious thought.

But I've enjoyed your non-rosacea diet posts. In particular, I recall

your providing an insightful perspective on NRS finances, and your

openness a while back in rethinking the phrase " controlling

rosacea. " I also very much appreciate your direct, honest reponses

to me, and in agreeing not to associate me or my posts/words with

your diet, by links or otherwise, in any manner.

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

[Guest guest]

Deryk, when the skin's protective barrier is impaired, or when sebum

production or elimination isn't optimal, or when skin cell turnover

is disturbed, the overall skin health and physiology is affected.

That's going to make other skin conditions more likely, and more

severe. So I would expect the co-existence of rosacea with seborrheic

dermatitis, eczema, and/or acne would be quite common.

I'm not a dermatologist, but for those with chronic skin conditions,

I would think that skin management aims not only at minimizing

symptoms but also at achieving the healthiest skin possible. That's

my personal goal; even more than symptom control at any particular

moment is the overall health of my skin.

I genuinely don't feel that rosacea is more unglamorous that other

conditions. Besides, Cameron and Bill Clinton are pretty

glamorous. <g>

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

>

> Maybe we should start to think of rosacea as being part of a larger

> family of disorders, or perhaps even a particular manifestation of

one

> disorder. There are often problems in diagnosing rosacea because of

> the overlap of symptoms with other conditions; and of course, there

> are those of us who suffer from more than one condition

> simultaneously. More than this, when I began to suffer from acne at

> age 15, there was the chance that is would disappear after puberty.

> There was also the chance that it would continue into my 20s, 30s,

> 40s,.... But was there not also the chance that it could evolve(or

> trigger) into various other disorders, such as seb. derm. and

rosacea.

> The fact is, we have no coherent explanation for these(this)

> disease(s). Are they genetic, bacterial or viral in origin? Are

they

> possibly a combination? Our disease ebbs and flows; we find

personal

> triggers which vary and change with time; we have remissions; the

> disease comes back. A permanent solution is evasive.

> It is extremely discouraging that we are only at the starting

> line of understanding--none of us is likely to witness a

> " breakthrough " in the treatments of these diseases in our

> lifetimes--we aren't even discussed. Perhaps if we had some

Hollywood

> star champion our cause, there would be interest and money--but that

> isn't going to happen--rosacea is a very unglamourous disease.

>

> I don't want to depress anyone above what the disease depresses

> us all, but the reality of rosacea is nothing but depressing,

> Deryk