Talk:Eczema

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Protopic 2 Immunomodulators may cause cancer 3 Name 3.1 Diagnosis Info 4 Eczema and detergents 5 General Notes and Discussion 6 Suggestions for Cleanup 7 Any valuable information? 8 Sodium 9 Dermatitis and Eczema 10 Synonymous 11 classification thoughts 12 External Resource for Eczema 13 Which major league idiot always removes my chances? 14 Deleted some stuff that was missing references 15 Suggest splitting 16 Inapropriate word 17 Request external link allergymatters.com 18 External forum link: www.babycenter.com 19 At least include the links below so Wikipedia can really help people cure themselves of eczema 20 Cures 21 Exteranl links

[edit] Protopic

I would like to see some mention of newer treatments such as Protopic.

I may come back and add something about these.

--bodnotbod 21:01, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC) Colloidal oatmeal (eg Dermaveen) treatment appears valuable.

[edit] Immunomodulators may cause cancer

Apparently, some US government scientists think Immunomodulators used to treat eczema can cause cancer of the immune system. [1] One quick question, does Betamethasone have anything to do with this?

• Short answer: No.
• Long answer: The immunomodulators (pimecrolimus & tacrolimus) probably have a tiny risk for longterm use (possibly by inhibiting the normal immune symtems ability to remove some abnormal cells). However any chronic inflammatory condition (i.e. dermatitis), by the very nature of the increase in cell activity and replication, has a small risk of causing cancer too (see Bowen's disease). Steroids are not considered to have such risk, but used to excess may cause skin thinning (atrophy), aborption into the body causing bone demineralisation (osteoporosis) and may make skin infections more likely (fungal) or worse (viral). The dramatic improvement in patient's well being (the severe distress to children who are badly affected) needs be bourne in mind when deciding whether to treat or not. -David Ruben 14:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Surely this is more commonly known as eczema. — Chameleon 13:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. Johnleemk | Talk 15:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Me too. JFW | T@lk 20:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Both names seem common to me and Google seems to agree. Without some stronger argument I'd rather stick with the name the original author chose. Dragons flight July 3, 2005 11:16 (UTC)

  Dermatitis - derma = skin & itis = inflammation. There are hundreds of other inflammatory conditions of the skin. Eczema is a more defined disease entity. JFW | T@lk 3 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)

  Well if there is some technical distinction, and the article doesn't seem to make clear what it is, then shouldn't there be an article at each term? The present article uses the words in roughly equal abundances. Dragons flight July 3, 2005 22:30 (UTC)

  According to the Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary, the difference is the primary cause of the condition. Eczema is an endogenous condition whereas dermatitis is caused by outside agents. This means that atopic eczema is caused by the body having an abnormal reaction to a normal stimulus (e.g., dust or pollen). In dermatitis there is an external irritant such as an acid (e.g., washing powder). However it does mention that this is not a rule and that the term "atopic dermatitis" is synonymous with eczema. I hope this helps. (and it is not too late!) Losgann February 13, 2006 22:15 (UTC)

  See The Merck Manual, Dermatitis. It suggests, like others, that both terms are synonymous.

• Support. Dermatitis is a very generic term, as skin inflammation can occur as part of many conditions, but this article seems to be about eczema in general, if I understand things correctly. Perhaps a separate article should be written about dermatitis in general, sort of a broad summary article. I'll ask one of my dermatology friends if she can clarify at all. — Knowledge Seeker দ 4 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 20:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] Diagnosis Info

The text concerning eczema diagnosis comes from MediPrimer:Eczema Primer. As the copyright holder of that website, I authorize the use of this text under the GFDL as part of Wikipedia. Yashka78 20:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the diagnosis section rather unclear.

[edit] Eczema and detergents

This new section[2] has some shortcomings: (1) it addresses the reader, (2) the references are interspersed with the text instead of using footnotes. Could I ask the contributor to pay attention to this? JFW | T@lk 22:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General Notes and Discussion

It would be cool to see a discussion about the actual physiological underpinnings of this ailment, i.e. what is my skin actually doing that is causing me these problems? I don't know if this article is the right place for it, as the focus is (apparantly and appropriately) issues fo concern to patients.

There are several types of eczema, but the general hallmark is inflammation (PMID 16309494 reviews atopic eczema and may serve as a source for expansion).

Interesting, there is a decreased risk of lung cancer in people with eczema (PMID 16093291). This does not mean that you should carry on smoking. JFW | T@lk 23:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for Cleanup

Re-reading this article, I have to concluded its in a bit of a mess. In particular the 'Eczema and detergents' and 'Traditional remedies' sections need a drastic pruning rewrite. The latter half of the article reads like an overly familiar, poorly designed, health leaflet rather that a well-constructed encyclopaedic entry.

• Advice not to use soap/detergents gets mentioned 3 times
• re 'How to use soap when one must'
  • It is mostly a duplication of the information in the preceding 'Moisturizing' section.
  • The bit about not using lotions is wrong - the advice is of no soap/detergent, a soap-free lotion is fine (being effectively a moisturising cream with added water)
  • The suggestion about not using "any kind of ..... only if your doctor tells you to" is nonsense - no GP knows what any given soap manufacturer puts in their products, I advice patients to use a moisturising cream as a soap substitute or a non-soap moisturising wash bar, and with the advice given, I expect people to exercise some degree of common sense & caution on trying out products. I would be furious with WP if, on the basis of this article, a patient were to phone me from their local supermarket seeking advice about the dozens of soap bars displayed in front of them. This type of phrase is all too often seen and is rather infantile.
• re 'Traditional remedies'
  • It twice duplicates information on oats/oatmeal, both in that it appears in the list and in the rather wordy description, all of which was more succinctly mentioned previously in the 'Moisturizing' section.
  • There is a huge list of remedies listed, most of which have no corresponding article, but which gives almost as much page length as the various aspects of the standard step-wise approach. Why not list just a few examples (for which there are links) in the form of a single sentence ?

I suggest a rewrite (which I'm happy to do), but being unilaterally bold without some prior discussion is probably unwise given that quite a few people have contributed to this article over some time... so I welcome anyone’s comment (positive or negative) to the points above and the direction this article needs to follow. I'll then do a rewrite in about a week; this is a wiki so my humble attempt could always be reverted :-) David Ruben ^Talk 01:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I know you'll do alright. I agree with the soapy business. JFW | T@lk 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The entire article is a bit of a mishmash. It mirrors the state of eczema understanding and treatment -- huge disagreement among patients and practitioners alike, with lots of misinformation and myths among both. I made a few contributions, but I couldn't clean things up without starting over and seriously deleting much of what's there. My first suggestion would be to break out the different types of eczema into categories, and under each type-heading list credible theories about cause along with suggested prevention/treatment for each. Often recommendations completely conflict -- I disagree even with some of the suggestions made to fix this section -- but this is what happens in the real world, so the article should just be up front about that and list different typical recommendations, even though they conflict. That would allow new contributors to flesh out the entire state of understanding about eczema, conflicts and all. Photos of each type would be great. Another section with relevant topics and links to the research articles might work better than footnotes. For example, one topic might be eczema and probiotics (probiotics given to pregnant women reduce the incidence of eczema in infants significantly). Another topic might be eczema and hard/soft water (studies show less eczema where the water is soft versus areas that have hard water). Well-know pediatrician author T. Berry Brazelton suggests in his bestselling book Touchpoints that virtually all eczema can be prevented -- and backs this up with decades of practice -- perhaps another topic might be prevention, with links to different references and articles regarding prevention. There is a long list of topics that deserve some mention in an article about eczema, such as the "atopic march" -- the tendency for persons with eczema to develop asthma. Again, having such a heading would allow contributors to add major topics without having to rewrite the whole article.

[edit] Any valuable information?

I just wanted to ask the editors if there is any valuable areas of information on this siteEczema Treatment so that we can further develop in the area and make a valuable contribution to this article.

Thanks

Ryan

The reference you give is nicely written - I would need to take care not to find myself accidentally transfering (plagerising) paragraphs from it. The lists of actions seem sensible and yes any missing items need be incorporated into the overall reording of the article as discussed above David Ruben ^Talk 23:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a secondary source and hence not very useful compared to directly cited journal articles. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources. JFW | T@lk 22:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

True 2nd source, and thus not for referencing, but it is a useful list to check against that our article sensibly mentions the measures a patient can do for themselves. David Ruben ^Talk 22:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sodium

Sodium/Salt Connection: Anyone know of a Sodium/Salt Connection? I have suffered with Eczema for the past 25-30 years. I noticed recently, that the sodium/salt was causing my ezcema. I went on a low sodium diet- and my ezcema pustules have dissappeared in a matter of a few weeks. One indication of ezcema of the hands are nail cuticles receeding back with no cuticles. Anyone with ezcema of the hands should notice that the skin above the nail bed/cuticle is raised high- whereas normally, it should be tapered smooth to the nail with full and smooth cuticle. Doctors have often said that Ezcema can be caused by allergies- but I don't recall any mentioning salt as a cause. Few if any articles on the internet about a salt connection. Without a doubt, a low sodium diet has cured my Ezcema. Sodium and Pottasium act as a natural pump for our cells. I did see one article on a white paper from a doctor on a google search that mentioned that the pressure gets too great for the fluid to get back into the blood stream, causing ezcema for the elderly on their lower legs. Is there a connection to Sodium Laurel Sulfate based cleaning products? In the past, the corticoids I used help a bit- for a short time- but never got rid of it; keeping a low sodium diet did. Can we get feedback from experts in the field? When I do a search, I find little if anything in regards to the relationship of Sodium & Ezcema. Derrickhughes 15:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It sounds interesting, but I have never heard of it. Please look closely at this policy page if you're considering making modifications to the article to reflect your experiences. JFW | T@lk 23:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you this much, soaking my injured toenail by immersing my foot regularly in salt water definitely made eczema flare up, though not only on that foot, but definitely at the same time, making it one heck of a coincidence if it wasn't the cause.

As I understand things, saline solution is quie pointless as a antiseptic (whether as a gargle in cases of sore throat) or superficial skin infections/cuts - as the high-strength saline solution is more toxic to ones own cells & tissues than to bacteria etc (ie more irritation/harm caused than good). But this just makes saline solution a cause of chemical dermatitis (rather than intrinsic eczema) and need not be specifically mentioned in the article (else we will end up listing thousands of chemicals, eg bleaches, descaling solution, acids, alkalis, phenol-type organics etc etc) David Ruben ^Talk 20:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the salt-sufferer. I had to stop eating french fries & handling a variety of salted foods a while back. Sorry if this isn't the appropriate place for this comment.

I know this much, softened water used to make it awful.. Glad I don't have that anymore (city water may have chlorine and fluoride, but my skin likes it) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.48.43 (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Dermatitis and Eczema

I was going to begin working on the clean-up of both dermatitis and eczema, however, I don't think anything can be done before we reach agreement on the definitions of each term. So far I have discovered the following options:

• They are synonymous. (The Merck Manual)
• Eczema is an endogenous condition, dermatitis is an externally induced condition. (The Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary)
• Eczema is superficial dermatitis of unknown cause. (Mosby's Medical Dictionary)
• Eczema is synonymous with atopic dermatitis. (My own understanding prior to this - as a medical student)

The real question is: what topics should be included in each article? It may be useful to hear which condition people who claim to have Eczema actually suffer from. --Losgann 16:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Since this site uses ICD-10 references, I thought I might add that under the block "(L20-L30) Dermatitis and eczema", there is the note: "In this block the terms dermatitis and eczema are used synonymously and interchangeably." This leads me to suggest the re-merging of the two articles. I also suggest Eczema should be converted into a disambiguation page linking perhaps to both dermatitis and atopic dermatitis and explaining the different uses of the word in both medicine and common use. --Losgann 16:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Don't merge. I would maintain that in their common clinical usage (ie by GPs who see far more dermatology than the limited number of dermatologists), the term Eczema applies to an endogenous condition and is a sub-type of the wider dermatitis (which included contact dermatitis, allergic and seborrhoic dermatitis etc). Not all cases of Eczema have generalised Atopy. The management of Dermatitis (ie exogenous) is identification and removal of causative agent (only sometimes possible) and treatment similar to Eczema (moisturisers, steroids), however the expectation is of non-recurrence. Whereas patients with Eczema I would expect to resee with further occurances.
• I tend to reserve the term Dermatitis where there is either a clear exogenous causation (yes a fuller labelling with 'contact dermatitis' etc might be better), or if I have no clear idea of the diagnosis and merely wish to apply a description of the process (vs a named disease) - ie literally describing the appearance of a skin 'dermat-' inflammation 'itis'.
• It is a bit like stating that 'Asthma' should be moved to 'Restrictive Airways disease'. It may be an acurate description, but 'Restrictive' airways disease is not solely composed of 'Asthma'.
• I'ld need do some detailed searching, but I suspect 'atopic dermatitis' is a valid alternative to 'atopic eczema', but again I'm not sure most doctors would accept that 'eczema' has to be in those with generalised 'atopy' - ie not all 'eczema' is 'atopic eczema' (although patients with Eczema are more likely to have other atopy problems). In mathematical terms: ('Atopic dermatitis' ≡ 'Atopic Eczema') ⊆ all types of 'Eczema'
• In summary keep Dermatitis as a general description of skin inflammation, and link that page to more specific conditions or causes (eg Contact Dermatitis, Seborrhoic dermatitis, and Eczema being just one of the possible links). Excema then should remain as the generally used term, to describe endogeneous recurring condition, often associated with atopy, and usually starting in childhood. David Ruben ^Talk 05:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synonymous

Hi. I would like to add my vote to "synonymous" for eczema/dermatitis. In my searches, this seems to make most sense. Eczema/dermatitis is skin inflammation with underlying spongiosis. Since the understanding of what comes from within, and what from without, is woefully incomlete at present, and much may be mixed... well, I would not force a definition that way, before the facts are known. Cheers.Veebs 23:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)veebs

[edit] classification thoughts

I wanted to post of few of my thoughts after completing the re-do of the "types." I think eczema classification is a bit "all over the place" because it has been hard to think of it in a systematic way, and clinicians have basically made sense of it by finding clusters of eczema that were recognizable by some unifying characteristics, so that sharing advice on treatment became possible.

Unfortunately, this has over time resulted in the proliferation of synonyms, as well as questionable categories that really do not deserve a designation of their own. Some examples would be "shoe eczema" -- eczema in teens who wear overtight tennies; erythroderma -- full body eczema (aka generalized exfoliative dermatitis, red man syndrome); or my favorite, intertrigo -- eczema fat people get in their pendulous skin folds. Oi! The seduction of jargon... :-)

I would like to see a re-think of eczema classification, so that the irritant type becomes a primary consideration, and concerns with how much of the body is affected, or where on the body, or whether the irritant is touched, inhaled, or ingested, should be second order or third order considerations. After all, if one is reacting to nickel, that is the cogent problem, and how exactly it is getting into the body should be part of the problem solving within that category.

Some may question my including DH in the eczemas. I have done this for the following reasons: 1) DH does not seem any more bullous than dyshidrosis, and in fact perhaps less (in terms of #s of patients experiencing true bullae). 2) Great many DH patients get initially misdiagnosed as having just plain eczema, and suffer a great deal of agony trying to figure out what is going on. A list that includes DH is therefore patient-friendly; it enables them to compare and make sense of their disorder. 3) Some sources (such as NZ DermNet) mentions DH under "eczema, dermatitis and allergies" and so I am not creating a precedent here.

Submitted for your consideration. 204.94.16.45 19:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)V.B.

[edit] External Resource for Eczema

I keep adding my site which has documented text and photos of total eczema cure. Someone keeps deleting it. What? You don't want people to know there is a cure? Eczema Cure Story Eczema Cure Story, documented, photographed.

I want to add this link but someone keeps deleteing it Baby Eczema Treatments Let me know what you think.

• Eczema Some hard to find information specific for eczema.

The article reflects current medical thinking which has little help associated with it. Alongside the parroting of approved medical science, I suggest a new dynamic: cure & manageable symptoms directory. After all, that's why someone comes to wikipedia isn't it. Medical science is constantly evolving and has no unifying theory aka E=mcc dealing with disease often means taking the road less travelled.

For my son, we avoided all pork and supplemented the diet with fish oil. Another tigger was color dyes. His eczema is under control, not a factor.64.203.19.99 20:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Beg to differ, but wikipedia is not a directory nor a how-to-guide, but an encyclopedia for which each fact or opinion must be WP:Verified by WP:Citing from WP:Reliable sources. Use Google to find adverts, personal opinions/blogs or pseudoscience (remember WP:No original research is policy and see WP:What Wikipedia is not) David Ruben ^Talk 23:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

eh... a rave is so tempting...

Unfortunately, since Wiki has certain (well justified) rules, those of us who have radically different takes on eczema causation and treatment must tread lightly.

I quite agree with you. Current medical treatment focuses solely on symptom suppression, and is not even good at that, in many cases. (Patients, rathen than inadequate treatments, are then blamed.) The parents of severely afflicted children who persist in seeking a cure are discouraged by the drs. The nasty side-effects of steroids and other immune suppressants get short shrift. And patients are often steered away from effective home remedies! It's a disgrace. Post your story where other parents can see it!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by V.B. (talk • contribs). 21:39, 5 July 2006

Please do not post personal stories - wikipedia is not a blog site and any personal opinions within the article space would not meet WP:Reliable sources criteria and breach WP:No original research policy. David Ruben ^Talk 23:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which major league idiot always removes my chances?

Like the discussion board neurodermatitis.com, the major board for atopic dermatitis? or the FACT of atopic dermatitis associated with pseudomons (google over 80.000 hits, whatever may be the reason and whatever may come first)?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.133.56 (talk • contribs). 02:30, 30 August 2006

Above question fails to WP:Assume good faith, which is policy and was posted unsigned (again a policy). However to answer the questions:

• re neurodermatitis.com external link, this is not the major board for atopic dermatitis, as my edit summary explained "rv external link - discussion boards generaly not good external links and one with just 134 members is hardly notable". Suggest see WP:External links.
• re pseudomonas - aside from being uncited (minor issue), the information was added as a statement without any English to explain cause or possible significance. Wikipedia is not just a collection of facts (even if true), see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Google is generally a poor choice for medical or scientific research - by comparison PubMed search for eczema pseudomonas gives just 22 hits, few of which of direct relevance, since 1964 with no papers submitted for almost the last 4 years - so hardly major topic of research (eczema generates 12246 hits). So I think it does matter as to cause (due to damaged skin condition itself or secondary antibiotic use) and significance is very important if this fact is to be included (does it contribute to ongoing skin irritation, frequently give rise to unrecognised secondary infection or of little clinical significance in majority of cases ?) David Ruben ^Talk 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted some stuff that was missing references

Will delete again if references are not provided

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.133.56 (talk • contribs). 02:30, 30 August 2006

Thanx Idiot. Was't a TEST. I have a PhD AND Eczema but thanx for deleting my corrections!

Deleting half of an article is hardly the way to go about fix missing references. Please don't vandalise the article and try fixing it through slightly more conventional means. See WP:CITE#How_to_ask_for_citations.

Frank Quist 01:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? This is the only way to come by the "owner" of this article! Quit pro quo! Otherwise I delete!

Provice at least a scientific reference or 2 Million Google links or I will delete!

Eczema and detergents, provide more Medline links or I will delete!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.133.176 (talk • contribs). 03:25, 30 August 2006

Sign your talk pages submissions, its policy, with 4 tildes ~~~~. And wikipedia is not about "Quit pro quo! Otherwise I delete" - this is not collaborative, but disruptive behaviour.

• eczema detergents gets 146 hits on PubMed, many of which are directly relevant. Encyclopaedias document current accepted knowledge (eg PMID 15953066 in Hong Kong and currently link to Medline article), even if the evidence base is quite thin (eg PMID 16911274). David Ruben ^Talk 02:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:128.122.133.176 re further blanking (see 1 & 2), as per Template:blanking warning: Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks David Ruben ^Talk 02:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest splitting

The treatment section is pretty long. It looks like it would be best to split it up to keep the length manageable and focussed. I added the tag in the article, but if you disagree, please feel free to take it out! Skumarla 05:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak disagree (but open to change my mind) - In general article length should be kept down, but this overall article current makes a satifying whole (as for length, see Diabetes mellitus which is also very long, and treatment section of eczema is less that that given over to diabetes management pages). David Ruben ^Talk 22:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree Although you have a point in that articles should be kept as concise as possible, I think that the sections on treatment are necessary to the article. What maybe should be trimmed down is the section on eczema and detergents, as it seems a bit repetitive. cøøkiə Ξ _(talk) 01:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, it belongs in the same article.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok no one else has come forth in support of the suggestion (but a sensible suggestion Skumarla), so I'll close this for now and have removed the split-tag. David Ruben ^Talk 04:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inapropriate word

The word "Buttocks" has been removed from the paragraph on atopic ezcema, as it was inapropriate.

What would you prefer? Arse? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.48.43 (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Request external link allergymatters.com

We are an allergy company that provides an allergy learning centre, allergy product ratings and reviews. Our site is recommended by top practitioners in the field. We would like to know whether our site (allergymatters.com)is qualified. so that more allergy sufferers can benefit from this valuable resource. SOrry if we put our message in the wrong place. Thank you very much217.36.223.45 10:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the polite request on this and other pages (thus following WP:SPAM guideline re not directly inserting external links to website one is directly involved with), but no not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a directories listings and a commericial site is therefore not an appropriate external link (see WP:EL for policy). As your site introduces itself "Allergymatters is a unique One Stop Allergy Shop selling...". Please do stay though and improve our articles (if you sign up, it will be easier to direct you to relevant help & policy pages). Yours David Ruben ^Talk 13:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External forum link: www.babycenter.com

Recent external link dispute re "http://www.babycenter.com/comments/baby/babyills/babyrash/10872 Forum for Parents Who Have Children/Babies with Eczema". I generally try to follow WP:1RR, so having had my revert re-reverted, lets open this up for wider debate:

• Delete - Generally, unless the actual subject matter of the article, blogs/forums should not be linked. They fail to add additional information to the article, nor contain a depth of information that is beyond what should be included in an encyclopaedic entry. Wikipedia is IS NOT a listing directory (use Google for that). Principles are as set out in WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. David Ruben ^Talk 00:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:EL. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not only should the external links guidelines apply, but also I think we need to be very cautious about linking to a site without medial provenance on a subject that is medical. It seems irresponsible for an encyclopedia. --Siobhan Hansa 00:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per the consensus on Talk:Psoriasis#Babycenter.com.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] At least include the links below so Wikipedia can really help people cure themselves of eczema

Instead of putting mere propaganda for the PHARMACEUTICAL companies to sell more drugs. Of course if your top editor is on the payroll of the drug companies then wiki has been bought. Oh yeah, eczemacure.info is MY SITE, that is me in those photos. I know first hand what eczema looks and feels like because I personally suffered. And I know how eczema is cured because I got well. And I stay well. So how about letting other poor eczema sufferers know how it is done? Huh?

Dealing with symptoms is of little help. The real cure means addressing causes!

External link: www.eczemacure.info Eczema is cureable. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. I got well. You can too. This is my full story. For Free! http://www.eczemacure.info

External link: www.curezone.com http://curezone.com/dis/1.asp?C0=122 Eczema - Prevention & Curing Protocol

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goodsamaritan55 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a self help manual. We are trying to develop an encyclopedia article based on high standards of verifiability from reliable sources. That means tested and peer reviewed assertions, not anecdotal stories, either wonderful, like your own, or terrible, like some others on the web. Linking to your website does not further the encyclopedic purpose of the article, it merely promotes your particular story. I'm not even going to start on the curezone site. It's the sort of thing Wikipedia should never be linking to.

Also, please do not question the good faith of editors on this article unless you have evidence they are infact on the payroll of pharmacuticle companies and are editing the article from a non-neutral point of view. --Siobhan Hansa 17:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

External link: www.eczemacure.info in UNVERIFIABLE???? with PHOTOS??? Why? You think that is make-up??? In fact, it is the western pharmaceutical medical DISINFORMATION that is junk because it admits they have NO CURE, yet they still recommend all their SNAKE - OIL potions of STEROIDS and EMOLIENTS. I and my brother used your FALSE ECZEMA DEFINITIONS for YEARS and it got us NOWHERE!!! When we used the TRUTH CONCEPTS about DETOXIFICATION and NUTRITION, we got WELL and stay WELL Your current definition of ECZEMA is FALSE because it gets people NOWHERE!!! MY DEFINITIONS OF ECZEMA ARE THE TRUTH because it CURES PEOPLE OF ECZEMA FOREVER Eczema is cureable. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. I got well. You can too. This is my full story. For Free! http://www.eczemacure.info

WHAT DO I WANT FROM WIKIPEDIA on ECZEMA???

• - You work and read my website and pick up information AND PHOTOS from there.
• - You go to curezone.com and get information there.
• - You go to Andreas Moritz site and books especially liver flush and get information there.
• - You go to shirleys wellness cafe and get information from her.
• - Your encyclopedia should include VERIFIABLE TRUTH STORIES OF PEOPLE WHO GOT WELL.
• - Your pharmaceutical definitions are FALSE because PEOPLE DO NOT GET WELL.
• - Get a clue... put EDITORS in YOUR Eczema Wikipedia who have suffered from ECZEMA and GOT CURED and STAY CURED. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.177.232.134 (talk)

Please read and try to understand the Wikipedia policies of verifiablity from reliable sources. Self published websites are not considered reliable sources, so photos on your website do not meet Wikipedia's standard of verifiability. The threshhold for inclusion is verifiability from reliable sources, not truth. You say what you want from Wikipedia's article on eczema is for people to read your website. That really isn't in keeping with Wikipedia's mission to create an open content encyclopedia. If your purpose in being here is to get people to read your website for their own benefit you're in the wrong the place. You should look elsewhere for vehicles to reach out to others. Wikipedia is not a way to tell your own story. --Siobhan Hansa 01:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your case, a "study" with n=1, means nothing. And you might want to try to understand how Wikipedia works: there is no "top editor", and editors are not assigned to articles. Also, boldface all-caps shouting impresses no one, at least not positively. Give it a rest. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 02:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Look pal, you don't have to put my link in your eczema wiki page if you don't want to. So this is not a self serving thing so this is immaterial.
• But you have to put TRUTH INFORMATION there and there are many from curezone.com, shirleyswellnesscafe, etc. etc. on what ECZEMA really is.
• Your policy of verifiable reliable sources is good if YOU APPLY IT CORRECTLY... which YOU DO NOT!
• Your so-called sources NOW are verifiably reliably FALSE!!!!
• Just because you have a CRIME SYNDICATE putting up dozens of FALSE websites does not mean it is RELIABLE.
• Your Pharmaceutical DISINFORMATION shows that your CURE Rate is n=0 (big fat ZERO) therefore your eczema information is FALSE!!!
• Get a clue... put EDITORS in YOUR Eczema Wikipedia who have suffered from ECZEMA and GOT CURED and STAY CURED.

Are you an eczema sufferer? If you are, have you been cured? I say you use EXPERTS who are people who have experienced eczema and got cured and stayed cured. I say you use EXPERTS who are people who have cured people of eczema and those people stayed cured.

NOW, do you want me to go on furnish you n=so many people cured?

"The threshhold for inclusion is verifiability from reliable (FALSE) sources, not truth." So wikipedia is not interested in the truth. Wikipedia just regurgitates those who publish repeatedly FALSE information. Wikipedia does not help inform people cure themselves because you have happily posted FALSE information regarding Eczema.

TRUTH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT! Your eczema DISinformation today is mere false religion spouted by the pharmaceutical industry in so many websites they also financed. You have been duped.

Get a clue... put EDITORS in YOUR Eczema Wikipedia who have suffered from ECZEMA and GOT CURED and STAY CURED. If this team of editors currently in wikipedia eczema have never suffered eczema and have not been cured, then you have no business running this show. Get out and resign your position and get new editors who are INTERESTED IN TRUTH and HAVE EXPERIENCED TRUTH. Because only the TRUTH cures people of Eczema.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.177.232.134 (talk • contribs). 04:59, 30 October 2006

User:203.177.232.134 I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Five pillars. Wikipedia is not a soap box to express ones personal opinions or to carry out a debate (instead it may comment on a debate held externally in the real world by citing from reliable sources). The viewpoint is of WP:Neutral point of view not Wikipedia:Scientific point of view, so yes we report on flat-earth theories as people did once hold this viewpoint, but wikipedia is not here to re-educate those who still might hold this view. Similarly routinely Bloodletting to cure most ills is now considered factually without clinical basis, yet wikipedia has an article on the subject.

Details in an encyclopaedia must be WP:Cited from WP:Reliable sources in order to WP:Verify. Personal testaments does not count as a suitable reliable source (and that of an individual counts as personal research - see WP:No original research). Please read these links to policies.

Your above essay is in breach of WP:Assume good faith - you can not go asserting that other editors are in some Pharma-conspiracy. This is a collaborative work and editors need to work constructively together, you have already been advised once about not shouting (use of capitals).

Please also note the guideline to Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages - use 4 tildes "~~~~".

I suggest you read the above linked policies, take a wikibreak to think these over, and then decide if you wish to engage constructively with other editors. Further incivility and bad faith is liable to lead to a request for your URL-address account being blocked from wikipedia. David Ruben ^Talk 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is at least one editor here who has dealt successfully with own eczema. This one. And it was not via liver flushes. There are many types of eczema, and what may work for you and your type would be useless for other types. For example, there are eczemas caused by exposure to various allergens or irritants, and the most important thing there is to find and avoid the cause. It is true that dermatological advice is often lacking when it comes to eczema. But there is no need for insults here, nor for true believerism. Good luck with your web site. 74.38.112.235 04:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)V.B.

[edit] Cures

Of course eczema is curable. It depends on what kind and many other factors. If you would read the section on eczema types in this wiki article, you will see that clearly pointed out. Please read what is posted already before making criticisms that may not apply. Thank you. V.B. 04:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)V.B.

Whether "eczena" is curable, of course, depends on what you mean by "eczema". Alec - U.K. 04:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by eczema is what the wiki eczema article says. I think we have settled the question of eczema only referring to atopic eczema, haven't we? 205.119.60.112 22:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)V.B.

[edit] Exteranl links

I would like to add http://dmoz.org/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Skin_Disorders/Eczema/ as a resource --ArmadilloFromHell 19:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to link to even a dmoz directory on a medical related article like this. I think there's a more pronounced responsibility not to funnel readers towards unreliable information, and I don't think the dmoz process is rigorous enough for a subject like this. --Siobhan Hansa 19:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll defer to your view, but IMO for medical stuff, I think DMOZ is fairly good, compared to other parts of DMOZ. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to think, add it, it seems to have lots of useful links for people to explore. My 2 cents. 170.215.92.199 03:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)V.B.