Re: preventing angiogenesis

[Guest guest]

>

>also,ive read that green tea and burdock root have been used to

>prevent angiogenesis in certain experiments as well. (in both rats

>and humans).

>

please inform:

is that as a topical or

eaten

as 'gawd-intended'?

interestingly:

both green tea

and

burdock root (eaten slivered and stirfried)

are staples of the diet in japan

stacey

[Guest guest]

Can someone please explain what I am missing here? I realize good things do

not usually happen to me, so, I am trying not to get too excited about this,

as I am sure there is something I am missing (plus unless I did not see it,

not many people made a big fuss about this message either.) But it sounds

to me, as if there are 20 different potential cures for cea that will be

coming to market in the next 1-5 years? If any one of these are able to

prevent the growth of new blood vessels... combine that with a series of

Photoderm treatments, and Poof... cea is gone.. Can someone with a

solid understanding of medicine please explain to me why this is not going

to happen and/or work? Marjorie? Tony? ? anyone?

Thanks

Adam

preventing angiogenesis

> many of us have read about angiogenesis (growth of new blood vessels)

> as one of the components mentioned in dr. nase's book that lead to

> the gradual worsening of rosacea..

>

> found this article on current experiments that are targeting

> substances that can prevent angiogenesis (mainly for cancer and tumor-

> related research,but hey...it might benefit us too)

> http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/1680.50152

>

> also,ive read that green tea and burdock root have been used to

> prevent angiogenesis in certain experiments as well. (in both rats

> and humans).

>

>

>

> --

> Please read the list highlights before posting to the whole group

(http://rosacea.ii.net/toc.html). Your post will be delayed if you don't

give a meaningful subject or trim your reply text. You must change the

subject when replying to a digest !

>

> See http://www.drnase.com for info on his recently published book.

>

> To leave the list send an email to

rosacea-support-unsubscribe

>

>

[Guest guest]

Can someone please explain what I am missing here? I realize good things do

not usually happen to me, so, I am trying not to get too excited about this,

as I am sure there is something I am missing (plus unless I did not see it,

not many people made a big fuss about this message either.) But it sounds

to me, as if there are 20 different potential cures for cea that will be

coming to market in the next 1-5 years? If any one of these are able to

prevent the growth of new blood vessels... combine that with a series of

Photoderm treatments, and Poof... cea is gone.. Can someone with a

solid understanding of medicine please explain to me why this is not going

to happen and/or work? Marjorie? Tony? ? anyone?

Thanks

Adam

preventing angiogenesis

> many of us have read about angiogenesis (growth of new blood vessels)

> as one of the components mentioned in dr. nase's book that lead to

> the gradual worsening of rosacea..

>

> found this article on current experiments that are targeting

> substances that can prevent angiogenesis (mainly for cancer and tumor-

> related research,but hey...it might benefit us too)

> http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/1680.50152

>

> also,ive read that green tea and burdock root have been used to

> prevent angiogenesis in certain experiments as well. (in both rats

> and humans).

>

>

>

> --

> Please read the list highlights before posting to the whole group

(http://rosacea.ii.net/toc.html). Your post will be delayed if you don't

give a meaningful subject or trim your reply text. You must change the

subject when replying to a digest !

>

> See http://www.drnase.com for info on his recently published book.

>

> To leave the list send an email to

rosacea-support-unsubscribe

>

>

[Guest guest]

Can someone please explain what I am missing here? I realize good things do

not usually happen to me, so, I am trying not to get too excited about this,

as I am sure there is something I am missing (plus unless I did not see it,

not many people made a big fuss about this message either.) But it sounds

to me, as if there are 20 different potential cures for cea that will be

coming to market in the next 1-5 years? If any one of these are able to

prevent the growth of new blood vessels... combine that with a series of

Photoderm treatments, and Poof... cea is gone.. Can someone with a

solid understanding of medicine please explain to me why this is not going

to happen and/or work? Marjorie? Tony? ? anyone?

Thanks

Adam

preventing angiogenesis

> many of us have read about angiogenesis (growth of new blood vessels)

> as one of the components mentioned in dr. nase's book that lead to

> the gradual worsening of rosacea..

>

> found this article on current experiments that are targeting

> substances that can prevent angiogenesis (mainly for cancer and tumor-

> related research,but hey...it might benefit us too)

> http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/1680.50152

>

> also,ive read that green tea and burdock root have been used to

> prevent angiogenesis in certain experiments as well. (in both rats

> and humans).

>

>

>

> --

> Please read the list highlights before posting to the whole group

(http://rosacea.ii.net/toc.html). Your post will be delayed if you don't

give a meaningful subject or trim your reply text. You must change the

subject when replying to a digest !

>

> See http://www.drnase.com for info on his recently published book.

>

> To leave the list send an email to

rosacea-support-unsubscribe

>

>

[Guest guest]

Can someone please explain what I am missing here? I realize good things do

not usually happen to me, so, I am trying not to get too excited about this,

as I am sure there is something I am missing (plus unless I did not see it,

not many people made a big fuss about this message either.) But it sounds

to me, as if there are 20 different potential cures for cea that will be

coming to market in the next 1-5 years? If any one of these are able to

prevent the growth of new blood vessels... combine that with a series of

Photoderm treatments, and Poof... cea is gone.. Can someone with a

solid understanding of medicine please explain to me why this is not going

to happen and/or work? Marjorie? Tony? ? anyone?

Thanks

Adam

preventing angiogenesis

> many of us have read about angiogenesis (growth of new blood vessels)

> as one of the components mentioned in dr. nase's book that lead to

> the gradual worsening of rosacea..

>

> found this article on current experiments that are targeting

> substances that can prevent angiogenesis (mainly for cancer and tumor-

> related research,but hey...it might benefit us too)

> http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/1680.50152

>

> also,ive read that green tea and burdock root have been used to

> prevent angiogenesis in certain experiments as well. (in both rats

> and humans).

>

>

>

> --

> Please read the list highlights before posting to the whole group

(http://rosacea.ii.net/toc.html). Your post will be delayed if you don't

give a meaningful subject or trim your reply text. You must change the

subject when replying to a digest !

>

> See http://www.drnase.com for info on his recently published book.

>

> To leave the list send an email to

rosacea-support-unsubscribe

>

>

[Guest guest]

Adam, I don't want to leave a question directed at me unanswered, but

I've said this to you before: even with early enthusiastic results,

and whatever the particulars -- whether we're talking about

inhibiting angiogenesis or topical NOIs or centrally-acting

neurogenic pain control or forms of laser therapy -- it's a long,

long, long, long road from theoretical idea to proof of theory to

practical application in a safe and effective manner.

This is a fact: the vast majority of theories with early encouraging

results never complete that journey. Plus, it's the researcher's job

to promote his/her (and colleague's) work in as favorable a light as

possible without outright lying -- the abstracts we read, the private

communications, all of it is positive spin.

Specific to angiogenesis: for decades scientists have been working on

angiogenesis in cancer; there's much understanding there. But I'm not

aware of any evidence that angiogenesis is even involved in rosacea

(though that may be my ignorance).

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> Can someone please explain what I am missing here? I realize good

things do

> not usually happen to me, so, I am trying not to get too excited

about this,

> as I am sure there is something I am missing (plus unless I did not

see it,

> not many people made a big fuss about this message either.) But it

sounds

> to me, as if there are 20 different potential cures for cea

that will be

> coming to market in the next 1-5 years? If any one of these are

able to

> prevent the growth of new blood vessels... combine that with a

series of

> Photoderm treatments, and Poof... cea is gone.. Can someone

with a

> solid understanding of medicine please explain to me why this is

not going

> to happen and/or work? Marjorie? Tony? ? anyone?

>

> Thanks

>

> Adam

[Guest guest]

Adam, I don't want to leave a question directed at me unanswered, but

I've said this to you before: even with early enthusiastic results,

and whatever the particulars -- whether we're talking about

inhibiting angiogenesis or topical NOIs or centrally-acting

neurogenic pain control or forms of laser therapy -- it's a long,

long, long, long road from theoretical idea to proof of theory to

practical application in a safe and effective manner.

This is a fact: the vast majority of theories with early encouraging

results never complete that journey. Plus, it's the researcher's job

to promote his/her (and colleague's) work in as favorable a light as

possible without outright lying -- the abstracts we read, the private

communications, all of it is positive spin.

Specific to angiogenesis: for decades scientists have been working on

angiogenesis in cancer; there's much understanding there. But I'm not

aware of any evidence that angiogenesis is even involved in rosacea

(though that may be my ignorance).

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> Can someone please explain what I am missing here? I realize good

things do

> not usually happen to me, so, I am trying not to get too excited

about this,

> as I am sure there is something I am missing (plus unless I did not

see it,

> not many people made a big fuss about this message either.) But it

sounds

> to me, as if there are 20 different potential cures for cea

that will be

> coming to market in the next 1-5 years? If any one of these are

able to

> prevent the growth of new blood vessels... combine that with a

series of

> Photoderm treatments, and Poof... cea is gone.. Can someone

with a

> solid understanding of medicine please explain to me why this is

not going

> to happen and/or work? Marjorie? Tony? ? anyone?

>

> Thanks

>

> Adam

[Guest guest]

Adam, I don't want to leave a question directed at me unanswered, but

I've said this to you before: even with early enthusiastic results,

and whatever the particulars -- whether we're talking about

inhibiting angiogenesis or topical NOIs or centrally-acting

neurogenic pain control or forms of laser therapy -- it's a long,

long, long, long road from theoretical idea to proof of theory to

practical application in a safe and effective manner.

This is a fact: the vast majority of theories with early encouraging

results never complete that journey. Plus, it's the researcher's job

to promote his/her (and colleague's) work in as favorable a light as

possible without outright lying -- the abstracts we read, the private

communications, all of it is positive spin.

Specific to angiogenesis: for decades scientists have been working on

angiogenesis in cancer; there's much understanding there. But I'm not

aware of any evidence that angiogenesis is even involved in rosacea

(though that may be my ignorance).

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> Can someone please explain what I am missing here? I realize good

things do

> not usually happen to me, so, I am trying not to get too excited

about this,

> as I am sure there is something I am missing (plus unless I did not

see it,

> not many people made a big fuss about this message either.) But it

sounds

> to me, as if there are 20 different potential cures for cea

that will be

> coming to market in the next 1-5 years? If any one of these are

able to

> prevent the growth of new blood vessels... combine that with a

series of

> Photoderm treatments, and Poof... cea is gone.. Can someone

with a

> solid understanding of medicine please explain to me why this is

not going

> to happen and/or work? Marjorie? Tony? ? anyone?

>

> Thanks

>

> Adam

[Guest guest]

Adam, I don't want to leave a question directed at me unanswered, but

I've said this to you before: even with early enthusiastic results,

and whatever the particulars -- whether we're talking about

inhibiting angiogenesis or topical NOIs or centrally-acting

neurogenic pain control or forms of laser therapy -- it's a long,

long, long, long road from theoretical idea to proof of theory to

practical application in a safe and effective manner.

This is a fact: the vast majority of theories with early encouraging

results never complete that journey. Plus, it's the researcher's job

to promote his/her (and colleague's) work in as favorable a light as

possible without outright lying -- the abstracts we read, the private

communications, all of it is positive spin.

Specific to angiogenesis: for decades scientists have been working on

angiogenesis in cancer; there's much understanding there. But I'm not

aware of any evidence that angiogenesis is even involved in rosacea

(though that may be my ignorance).

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> Can someone please explain what I am missing here? I realize good

things do

> not usually happen to me, so, I am trying not to get too excited

about this,

> as I am sure there is something I am missing (plus unless I did not

see it,

> not many people made a big fuss about this message either.) But it

sounds

> to me, as if there are 20 different potential cures for cea

that will be

> coming to market in the next 1-5 years? If any one of these are

able to

> prevent the growth of new blood vessels... combine that with a

series of

> Photoderm treatments, and Poof... cea is gone.. Can someone

with a

> solid understanding of medicine please explain to me why this is

not going

> to happen and/or work? Marjorie? Tony? ? anyone?

>

> Thanks

>

> Adam

[Guest guest]

Hi,

This is just my take on this.

There are *already* oral medicines around that can stop / reduce

angiogenesis (thalidomide comes to mind). However, it must be taken

into account that angiogenesis is only one part of the progression of

rosacea: Usually the angiogensis occurs further down the disease

process, after chronic flushing and vascular damage has started.

Taking powerful, new medicines always has a risk (just look at the

history of the medicine I mention).

I personally believe that the future treatment of rosacea will be in

a combination of advanced vascular laser / IPL treatment (which

continue to improve) and topicals that can be used on a daily basis

to reduce flushing, redness and angiogenesis. There is already proof

that NO inhibitors reduce cutaneous blood flow and the production of

vascular endothelial growth factor (Dr. Ormerod studies on

psoriasis). There has been a rash of disappointing results on

rosacea with that medicine, but we are still at the investigatory

stages and technology in NO inhibition keeps advancing.

On the subject of vascular lasers, the next major advance will likely

be in a vascular laser / IPL device that can calibrate itself against

an individuals skin and deliver the maximum (optimum) energy possible

without causing skin damage (by heating). There have already been a

couple of patents filed on this type of technology.

Given what we know about the physiology of inflammation in the skin

and the processes that leads to cutanous blood vessel dilation

(flushing and redness), I still believe that topicals are the best

way forward. We will see progress in the next few years on topical

NO inhibitors, CGRP antagonists, Substance P antagonists and others

that work at some stage in the dilatory or inflammatory process. In

simple terms, dilation does not occur " spontaneously " . Scientists

can now determine what chemicals cause the dilation (usually released

from nerves surrounding the blood vessels or the blood vessels

themselves). Blockers (antagonists) exist for many of these

chemicals. When the right chemicals are blocked, dilation is either

eliminated or blocked (try a search on Medline for " CGRP dilation " ,

without quotes, for some of the literature). The real trick appears

to be in getting drugs that are well absorbed by the skin and that

are still potent when delivered topically.

These will most likely be in research on other diseases than

rosacea... All it takes is someone to apply that research to our

disease with determinition.

.

> Can someone please explain what I am missing here? I realize good

things do

> not usually happen to me, so, I am trying not to get too excited

about this,

> as I am sure there is something I am missing (plus unless I did not

see it,

> not many people made a big fuss about this message either.) But it

sounds

> to me, as if there are 20 different potential cures for cea

that will be

> coming to market in the next 1-5 years? If any one of these are

able to

> prevent the growth of new blood vessels... combine that with a

series of

> Photoderm treatments, and Poof... cea is gone.. Can someone

with a

> solid understanding of medicine please explain to me why this is

not going

> to happen and/or work? Marjorie? Tony? ? anyone?

>

> Thanks

>

> Adam

<snip message about angiogenesis>

[Guest guest]

Hi,

This is just my take on this.

There are *already* oral medicines around that can stop / reduce

angiogenesis (thalidomide comes to mind). However, it must be taken

into account that angiogenesis is only one part of the progression of

rosacea: Usually the angiogensis occurs further down the disease

process, after chronic flushing and vascular damage has started.

Taking powerful, new medicines always has a risk (just look at the

history of the medicine I mention).

I personally believe that the future treatment of rosacea will be in

a combination of advanced vascular laser / IPL treatment (which

continue to improve) and topicals that can be used on a daily basis

to reduce flushing, redness and angiogenesis. There is already proof

that NO inhibitors reduce cutaneous blood flow and the production of

vascular endothelial growth factor (Dr. Ormerod studies on

psoriasis). There has been a rash of disappointing results on

rosacea with that medicine, but we are still at the investigatory

stages and technology in NO inhibition keeps advancing.

On the subject of vascular lasers, the next major advance will likely

be in a vascular laser / IPL device that can calibrate itself against

an individuals skin and deliver the maximum (optimum) energy possible

without causing skin damage (by heating). There have already been a

couple of patents filed on this type of technology.

Given what we know about the physiology of inflammation in the skin

and the processes that leads to cutanous blood vessel dilation

(flushing and redness), I still believe that topicals are the best

way forward. We will see progress in the next few years on topical

NO inhibitors, CGRP antagonists, Substance P antagonists and others

that work at some stage in the dilatory or inflammatory process. In

simple terms, dilation does not occur " spontaneously " . Scientists

can now determine what chemicals cause the dilation (usually released

from nerves surrounding the blood vessels or the blood vessels

themselves). Blockers (antagonists) exist for many of these

chemicals. When the right chemicals are blocked, dilation is either

eliminated or blocked (try a search on Medline for " CGRP dilation " ,

without quotes, for some of the literature). The real trick appears

to be in getting drugs that are well absorbed by the skin and that

are still potent when delivered topically.

These will most likely be in research on other diseases than

rosacea... All it takes is someone to apply that research to our

disease with determinition.

.

> Can someone please explain what I am missing here? I realize good

things do

> not usually happen to me, so, I am trying not to get too excited

about this,

> as I am sure there is something I am missing (plus unless I did not

see it,

> not many people made a big fuss about this message either.) But it

sounds

> to me, as if there are 20 different potential cures for cea

that will be

> coming to market in the next 1-5 years? If any one of these are

able to

> prevent the growth of new blood vessels... combine that with a

series of

> Photoderm treatments, and Poof... cea is gone.. Can someone

with a

> solid understanding of medicine please explain to me why this is

not going

> to happen and/or work? Marjorie? Tony? ? anyone?

>

> Thanks

>

> Adam

<snip message about angiogenesis>

[Guest guest]

Hi,

This is just my take on this.

There are *already* oral medicines around that can stop / reduce

angiogenesis (thalidomide comes to mind). However, it must be taken

into account that angiogenesis is only one part of the progression of

rosacea: Usually the angiogensis occurs further down the disease

process, after chronic flushing and vascular damage has started.

Taking powerful, new medicines always has a risk (just look at the

history of the medicine I mention).

I personally believe that the future treatment of rosacea will be in

a combination of advanced vascular laser / IPL treatment (which

continue to improve) and topicals that can be used on a daily basis

to reduce flushing, redness and angiogenesis. There is already proof

that NO inhibitors reduce cutaneous blood flow and the production of

vascular endothelial growth factor (Dr. Ormerod studies on

psoriasis). There has been a rash of disappointing results on

rosacea with that medicine, but we are still at the investigatory

stages and technology in NO inhibition keeps advancing.

On the subject of vascular lasers, the next major advance will likely

be in a vascular laser / IPL device that can calibrate itself against

an individuals skin and deliver the maximum (optimum) energy possible

without causing skin damage (by heating). There have already been a

couple of patents filed on this type of technology.

Given what we know about the physiology of inflammation in the skin

and the processes that leads to cutanous blood vessel dilation

(flushing and redness), I still believe that topicals are the best

way forward. We will see progress in the next few years on topical

NO inhibitors, CGRP antagonists, Substance P antagonists and others

that work at some stage in the dilatory or inflammatory process. In

simple terms, dilation does not occur " spontaneously " . Scientists

can now determine what chemicals cause the dilation (usually released

from nerves surrounding the blood vessels or the blood vessels

themselves). Blockers (antagonists) exist for many of these

chemicals. When the right chemicals are blocked, dilation is either

eliminated or blocked (try a search on Medline for " CGRP dilation " ,

without quotes, for some of the literature). The real trick appears

to be in getting drugs that are well absorbed by the skin and that

are still potent when delivered topically.

These will most likely be in research on other diseases than

rosacea... All it takes is someone to apply that research to our

disease with determinition.

.

> Can someone please explain what I am missing here? I realize good

things do

> not usually happen to me, so, I am trying not to get too excited

about this,

> as I am sure there is something I am missing (plus unless I did not

see it,

> not many people made a big fuss about this message either.) But it

sounds

> to me, as if there are 20 different potential cures for cea

that will be

> coming to market in the next 1-5 years? If any one of these are

able to

> prevent the growth of new blood vessels... combine that with a

series of

> Photoderm treatments, and Poof... cea is gone.. Can someone

with a

> solid understanding of medicine please explain to me why this is

not going

> to happen and/or work? Marjorie? Tony? ? anyone?

>

> Thanks

>

> Adam

<snip message about angiogenesis>

[Guest guest]

Hi,

This is just my take on this.

There are *already* oral medicines around that can stop / reduce

angiogenesis (thalidomide comes to mind). However, it must be taken

into account that angiogenesis is only one part of the progression of

rosacea: Usually the angiogensis occurs further down the disease

process, after chronic flushing and vascular damage has started.

Taking powerful, new medicines always has a risk (just look at the

history of the medicine I mention).

I personally believe that the future treatment of rosacea will be in

a combination of advanced vascular laser / IPL treatment (which

continue to improve) and topicals that can be used on a daily basis

to reduce flushing, redness and angiogenesis. There is already proof

that NO inhibitors reduce cutaneous blood flow and the production of

vascular endothelial growth factor (Dr. Ormerod studies on

psoriasis). There has been a rash of disappointing results on

rosacea with that medicine, but we are still at the investigatory

stages and technology in NO inhibition keeps advancing.

On the subject of vascular lasers, the next major advance will likely

be in a vascular laser / IPL device that can calibrate itself against

an individuals skin and deliver the maximum (optimum) energy possible

without causing skin damage (by heating). There have already been a

couple of patents filed on this type of technology.

Given what we know about the physiology of inflammation in the skin

and the processes that leads to cutanous blood vessel dilation

(flushing and redness), I still believe that topicals are the best

way forward. We will see progress in the next few years on topical

NO inhibitors, CGRP antagonists, Substance P antagonists and others

that work at some stage in the dilatory or inflammatory process. In

simple terms, dilation does not occur " spontaneously " . Scientists

can now determine what chemicals cause the dilation (usually released

from nerves surrounding the blood vessels or the blood vessels

themselves). Blockers (antagonists) exist for many of these

chemicals. When the right chemicals are blocked, dilation is either

eliminated or blocked (try a search on Medline for " CGRP dilation " ,

without quotes, for some of the literature). The real trick appears

to be in getting drugs that are well absorbed by the skin and that

are still potent when delivered topically.

These will most likely be in research on other diseases than

rosacea... All it takes is someone to apply that research to our

disease with determinition.

.

> Can someone please explain what I am missing here? I realize good

things do

> not usually happen to me, so, I am trying not to get too excited

about this,

> as I am sure there is something I am missing (plus unless I did not

see it,

> not many people made a big fuss about this message either.) But it

sounds

> to me, as if there are 20 different potential cures for cea

that will be

> coming to market in the next 1-5 years? If any one of these are

able to

> prevent the growth of new blood vessels... combine that with a

series of

> Photoderm treatments, and Poof... cea is gone.. Can someone

with a

> solid understanding of medicine please explain to me why this is

not going

> to happen and/or work? Marjorie? Tony? ? anyone?

>

> Thanks

>

> Adam

<snip message about angiogenesis>

[Guest guest]

Marjorie,

Wilkin, M.D, wrote a paper on rosacea back in '94 that says

in part " Angiogenesis may also contribute to the telangiectasia of

rosacea.... "

Here's a link to the paper which is from the Galderma site for

Metrogel:

http://www.metrogel.com/pdf/rosacea_pathophysiology.pdf

Take care,

Matija

. But I'm not

> aware of any evidence that angiogenesis is even involved in rosacea

> (though that may be my ignorance).

>

> Marjorie

>

> Marjorie Lazoff, MD

>

[Guest guest]

Marjorie,

Wilkin, M.D, wrote a paper on rosacea back in '94 that says

in part " Angiogenesis may also contribute to the telangiectasia of

rosacea.... "

Here's a link to the paper which is from the Galderma site for

Metrogel:

http://www.metrogel.com/pdf/rosacea_pathophysiology.pdf

Take care,

Matija

. But I'm not

> aware of any evidence that angiogenesis is even involved in rosacea

> (though that may be my ignorance).

>

> Marjorie

>

> Marjorie Lazoff, MD

>

[Guest guest]

Marjorie,

Wilkin, M.D, wrote a paper on rosacea back in '94 that says

in part " Angiogenesis may also contribute to the telangiectasia of

rosacea.... "

Here's a link to the paper which is from the Galderma site for

Metrogel:

http://www.metrogel.com/pdf/rosacea_pathophysiology.pdf

Take care,

Matija

. But I'm not

> aware of any evidence that angiogenesis is even involved in rosacea

> (though that may be my ignorance).

>

> Marjorie

>

> Marjorie Lazoff, MD

>

[Guest guest]

Marjorie,

Wilkin, M.D, wrote a paper on rosacea back in '94 that says

in part " Angiogenesis may also contribute to the telangiectasia of

rosacea.... "

Here's a link to the paper which is from the Galderma site for

Metrogel:

http://www.metrogel.com/pdf/rosacea_pathophysiology.pdf

Take care,

Matija

. But I'm not

> aware of any evidence that angiogenesis is even involved in rosacea

> (though that may be my ignorance).

>

> Marjorie

>

> Marjorie Lazoff, MD

>

[Guest guest]

Matija, that's a great article, one I hadn't read it in awhile.

Rereading it gave me added insight into tretinoin and its pro-

angiogenetic effects, which if true supercedes any inhibition of

VEGF. (Those who followed the thread on tretinoin may wish to read

the last few paragraphs of the Wilkin's article, the link to which

Matija has provided.)

But regarding your comment, the key word is MAY contribute; nowhere

in the article does Wilkins say that angiogenesis DOES contribute to

rosacea; he can't, I imagine, because there's no proof. It's not just

sematics, it's the difference between a theory ( " may " ) and a fact

( " does " ).

One other thing: as much as I like this article, I recognize that it

is biased towards the theory of vascular as primary etiology of

rosacea. I don't know how balanced it is, nor do I know how well it's

held up after 8 years.

Thank you!

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> Marjorie,

>

> Wilkin, M.D, wrote a paper on rosacea back in '94 that

says

> in part " Angiogenesis may also contribute to the telangiectasia of

> rosacea.... "

>

> Here's a link to the paper which is from the Galderma site for

> Metrogel:

>

> http://www.metrogel.com/pdf/rosacea_pathophysiology.pdf

>

> Take care,

> Matija

>

>

>

> . But I'm not

> > aware of any evidence that angiogenesis is even involved in

rosacea

> > (though that may be my ignorance).

> >

> > Marjorie

> >

> > Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> >

[Guest guest]

Matija, that's a great article, one I hadn't read it in awhile.

Rereading it gave me added insight into tretinoin and its pro-

angiogenetic effects, which if true supercedes any inhibition of

VEGF. (Those who followed the thread on tretinoin may wish to read

the last few paragraphs of the Wilkin's article, the link to which

Matija has provided.)

But regarding your comment, the key word is MAY contribute; nowhere

in the article does Wilkins say that angiogenesis DOES contribute to

rosacea; he can't, I imagine, because there's no proof. It's not just

sematics, it's the difference between a theory ( " may " ) and a fact

( " does " ).

One other thing: as much as I like this article, I recognize that it

is biased towards the theory of vascular as primary etiology of

rosacea. I don't know how balanced it is, nor do I know how well it's

held up after 8 years.

Thank you!

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> Marjorie,

>

> Wilkin, M.D, wrote a paper on rosacea back in '94 that

says

> in part " Angiogenesis may also contribute to the telangiectasia of

> rosacea.... "

>

> Here's a link to the paper which is from the Galderma site for

> Metrogel:

>

> http://www.metrogel.com/pdf/rosacea_pathophysiology.pdf

>

> Take care,

> Matija

>

>

>

> . But I'm not

> > aware of any evidence that angiogenesis is even involved in

rosacea

> > (though that may be my ignorance).

> >

> > Marjorie

> >

> > Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> >

[Guest guest]

Matija, that's a great article, one I hadn't read it in awhile.

Rereading it gave me added insight into tretinoin and its pro-

angiogenetic effects, which if true supercedes any inhibition of

VEGF. (Those who followed the thread on tretinoin may wish to read

the last few paragraphs of the Wilkin's article, the link to which

Matija has provided.)

But regarding your comment, the key word is MAY contribute; nowhere

in the article does Wilkins say that angiogenesis DOES contribute to

rosacea; he can't, I imagine, because there's no proof. It's not just

sematics, it's the difference between a theory ( " may " ) and a fact

( " does " ).

One other thing: as much as I like this article, I recognize that it

is biased towards the theory of vascular as primary etiology of

rosacea. I don't know how balanced it is, nor do I know how well it's

held up after 8 years.

Thank you!

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> Marjorie,

>

> Wilkin, M.D, wrote a paper on rosacea back in '94 that

says

> in part " Angiogenesis may also contribute to the telangiectasia of

> rosacea.... "

>

> Here's a link to the paper which is from the Galderma site for

> Metrogel:

>

> http://www.metrogel.com/pdf/rosacea_pathophysiology.pdf

>

> Take care,

> Matija

>

>

>

> . But I'm not

> > aware of any evidence that angiogenesis is even involved in

rosacea

> > (though that may be my ignorance).

> >

> > Marjorie

> >

> > Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> >

[Guest guest]

Matija, that's a great article, one I hadn't read it in awhile.

Rereading it gave me added insight into tretinoin and its pro-

angiogenetic effects, which if true supercedes any inhibition of

VEGF. (Those who followed the thread on tretinoin may wish to read

the last few paragraphs of the Wilkin's article, the link to which

Matija has provided.)

But regarding your comment, the key word is MAY contribute; nowhere

in the article does Wilkins say that angiogenesis DOES contribute to

rosacea; he can't, I imagine, because there's no proof. It's not just

sematics, it's the difference between a theory ( " may " ) and a fact

( " does " ).

One other thing: as much as I like this article, I recognize that it

is biased towards the theory of vascular as primary etiology of

rosacea. I don't know how balanced it is, nor do I know how well it's

held up after 8 years.

Thank you!

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> Marjorie,

>

> Wilkin, M.D, wrote a paper on rosacea back in '94 that

says

> in part " Angiogenesis may also contribute to the telangiectasia of

> rosacea.... "

>

> Here's a link to the paper which is from the Galderma site for

> Metrogel:

>

> http://www.metrogel.com/pdf/rosacea_pathophysiology.pdf

>

> Take care,

> Matija

>

>

>

> . But I'm not

> > aware of any evidence that angiogenesis is even involved in

rosacea

> > (though that may be my ignorance).

> >

> > Marjorie

> >

> > Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> >

[Guest guest]

Marjorie,

I agree that MAY is the key word here. I wonder if since '94 there

has been more research done to see if there is a proven relationship

between rosacea and angiogenesis. I couldn't find anything on the

web, except for this article by Wilkin, who is considered an expert

on rosacea. I think he did contribute to the new classification of

rosacea that was published in April of this year. Did you get to read

that entire classification article?

About his bias in viewing rosacea as a vascular disorder, what do you

think the primary etiology of it is? I'm not saying that to refute

your statement, but am curious about your ideas.

Take care!

Matija

> > Marjorie,

> >

> > Wilkin, M.D, wrote a paper on rosacea back in '94 that

> says

> > in part " Angiogenesis may also contribute to the telangiectasia

of

> > rosacea.... "

> >

> > Here's a link to the paper which is from the Galderma site for

> > Metrogel:

> >

> > http://www.metrogel.com/pdf/rosacea_pathophysiology.pdf

> >

> > Take care,

> > Matija

> >

> >

> >

> > . But I'm not

> > > aware of any evidence that angiogenesis is even involved in

> rosacea

> > > (though that may be my ignorance).

> > >

> > > Marjorie

> > >

> > > Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> > >

[Guest guest]

Marjorie,

I agree that MAY is the key word here. I wonder if since '94 there

has been more research done to see if there is a proven relationship

between rosacea and angiogenesis. I couldn't find anything on the

web, except for this article by Wilkin, who is considered an expert

on rosacea. I think he did contribute to the new classification of

rosacea that was published in April of this year. Did you get to read

that entire classification article?

About his bias in viewing rosacea as a vascular disorder, what do you

think the primary etiology of it is? I'm not saying that to refute

your statement, but am curious about your ideas.

Take care!

Matija

> > Marjorie,

> >

> > Wilkin, M.D, wrote a paper on rosacea back in '94 that

> says

> > in part " Angiogenesis may also contribute to the telangiectasia

of

> > rosacea.... "

> >

> > Here's a link to the paper which is from the Galderma site for

> > Metrogel:

> >

> > http://www.metrogel.com/pdf/rosacea_pathophysiology.pdf

> >

> > Take care,

> > Matija

> >

> >

> >

> > . But I'm not

> > > aware of any evidence that angiogenesis is even involved in

> rosacea

> > > (though that may be my ignorance).

> > >

> > > Marjorie

> > >

> > > Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> > >

[Guest guest]

Marjorie,

I agree that MAY is the key word here. I wonder if since '94 there

has been more research done to see if there is a proven relationship

between rosacea and angiogenesis. I couldn't find anything on the

web, except for this article by Wilkin, who is considered an expert

on rosacea. I think he did contribute to the new classification of

rosacea that was published in April of this year. Did you get to read

that entire classification article?

About his bias in viewing rosacea as a vascular disorder, what do you

think the primary etiology of it is? I'm not saying that to refute

your statement, but am curious about your ideas.

Take care!

Matija

> > Marjorie,

> >

> > Wilkin, M.D, wrote a paper on rosacea back in '94 that

> says

> > in part " Angiogenesis may also contribute to the telangiectasia

of

> > rosacea.... "

> >

> > Here's a link to the paper which is from the Galderma site for

> > Metrogel:

> >

> > http://www.metrogel.com/pdf/rosacea_pathophysiology.pdf

> >

> > Take care,

> > Matija

> >

> >

> >

> > . But I'm not

> > > aware of any evidence that angiogenesis is even involved in

> rosacea

> > > (though that may be my ignorance).

> > >

> > > Marjorie

> > >

> > > Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> > >

[Guest guest]

Marjorie,

I agree that MAY is the key word here. I wonder if since '94 there

has been more research done to see if there is a proven relationship

between rosacea and angiogenesis. I couldn't find anything on the

web, except for this article by Wilkin, who is considered an expert

on rosacea. I think he did contribute to the new classification of

rosacea that was published in April of this year. Did you get to read

that entire classification article?

About his bias in viewing rosacea as a vascular disorder, what do you

think the primary etiology of it is? I'm not saying that to refute

your statement, but am curious about your ideas.

Take care!

Matija

> > Marjorie,

> >

> > Wilkin, M.D, wrote a paper on rosacea back in '94 that

> says

> > in part " Angiogenesis may also contribute to the telangiectasia

of

> > rosacea.... "

> >

> > Here's a link to the paper which is from the Galderma site for

> > Metrogel:

> >

> > http://www.metrogel.com/pdf/rosacea_pathophysiology.pdf

> >

> > Take care,

> > Matija

> >

> >

> >

> > . But I'm not

> > > aware of any evidence that angiogenesis is even involved in

> rosacea

> > > (though that may be my ignorance).

> > >

> > > Marjorie

> > >

> > > Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> > >