Talk:Acne vulgaris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 Acne vulgaris was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

Contents

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Acne vulgaris has failed, for the following reason(s):

Although some editors are doing a great job to keep this article factually accurate and spam-free, I would like to see the following points cleared out:
  • the symptoms section contains some information I was lacking in the causes section.
  • There should be a classifications section, explaining what other forms exist outside acne vulgaris, e.g. chloracne
  • Some information on whiteheads and blackheads should be mentioned in this article
  • The intro should mention puberty.
  • I suggest a differtial diagnosis and epidemiology section.
  • There are some minor errors: e.g. P. Acnes instead of Propionibacterium acnes, Development of acne vulgaris in latter years, etc.
  • It's not mentioned why it has a predilection for certain areas.

To summarise, I think is not organised enough yet, and some important information is missing. All comments are welcome! Steven Fruitsmaak 19:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

When I visited this article the scars section was mostly deleted and I put it back up. Was this a bad move and should it be reverted? -ScotchMB 23:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worse actually, that we need an expert on the subject banner here. Look at all the disagreement and controversy on it. The snare 01:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Those pics are disgusting! Shouldn't we perhaps apply more "encyclopedia-ish" ones?

need a redirect for 'acne' lowercase, is that an admin thing?

There's no such thing; the first character is always a capital one. acne and Acne both point to the same page. ACne, AcnE, etc. don't (but please don't make pages for these!). Jeronimo
no intent on creating new pages just trying to figure out why acne is on the 'most wanted list' ...scroll down near 4.

Something to consider adding, though it's relatively new. Why stress is a factor, Substance P. Jamesday 03:34, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, stress should be mentioned, how stress causes increased oil secretion in some people causes acne.--203.166.57.11 00:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Shall we go into detail about treatments and causes that are more controversial or only stick to what we know?--203.166.57.11 00:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think these picutres are fine just they way they are as they depict reality instead of artwork Aujlakam 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing on popping zits?? --CJWilly

Male hormones, secreted oil, and skin particles don't "cause" bacteria, so I have trouble with bacteria being labeled an effect of acne. In the absence of the bacteria, pimples don't appear. Also, in the case of benzoyl peroxide at least, treatment can't be considered finished (until the hormone/skin oil causes subside) and acne will reappear within days if treatment is stopped. Yath 17:08, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I guess whoever originally wrote that sentence meant to say that the bacteria are not the 'root cause' of the problem, as they are themselves caused by blockages in the hair follicles of the skin: without the blockages caused by the build-up of sebum, etc., there would be no bacteria, and consequently no pimples. I agree with you, though, that the text was a bit misleading as it was written. I've had a go at a rewrite, which (hopefully) is a bit clearer.
I also agree with what you say about about benzoyl peroxide treatment, and I've altered the text accordingly. R Lowry 21:01, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wrote some of those changes, the bacteria is the result of other things, but without it, no pimple, so it is a cause. Killing the infection gets rid of the pimple. I agree with changes to what I wrote.--203.166.57.11 00:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether it's the cause of things too- it wouldn't surprise me if the presence of the bacteria didn't damage the skin and thus cause the skin to make more sebum; the skin would be trying to protect itself from damage. But the bacteria eats the sebum and emits chemicals that cause even more damage, so it's a vicious circle.

-WolfKeeper

Why have you removed all of my comments in your last revision lowry?? Some of them were good. --Komencanto 08:54, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not aware of having removed any text, other than from the sentence that we've been discussing here. I also can't see any record of any edits to this article by someone called Komencanto, so it's a bit difficult for me to know which comments you're referring to. Can you be more specific? R Lowry 18:14, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Heat damaged food" as a cause of acne

Consumption of heat damaged foods. Proteins exposed to heat are altered in such a way that digestive enzymes are unable to break them down into constituent amino acids. These proteins are processed by lymph glands and excreeted through the skin. Due to the hydrophilic nature of protein, subcutaneous water pressure is increased which closes off sebum canals, trapping bacteria. A cyst is the result. - Boy does this sound like nonsence pseudoscience. Has anyone got a reference for this stuff???? (posted by anon)

I've removed the paragraph you've quoted above, as it seems the text was added some time ago by a user trying to hawk his "natural remedy" product. The only reference I can find with "heat damaged food" and acne mentioned are these alternative medicine-type commercial sites. Seems they're trying to twist the principles of the Maillard reaction to dupe unwary customers. If anyone can provide a credible cite, the removed text may of course be reinstated. -- Hadal 08:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Acne reduced by sun exposure?

Anybody heard about acne being reduced by sun exposure? I think I heard and read quite a bit about that in my time. It seems sun rays change the sebum chemically as well as plainly heating it and it can flow outwards easier.

I've read (I can't remember the source, but it was scientific) that although sun exposure in the short-term reduces acne, by killing bacteria and heating the skin, long-term exposure weakens the skin's ability to fight bacteria. The skin is particularly helpless if sunburnt. For this reason, nearly all dermatologists strongly recommend that their patients, including acne-prone ones, wear sunscreen during extended sun exposure. --LostLeviathan 05:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a good news/bad news kind of deal.

The blue light in sunlight kills P.Acnes; this improves acne in the short-term.

However the UV light damages the skin, and then acne comes back worse than ever when P.Acnes recolonises.

I heard a claim that 90% of people had worse acne after sun exposure in the long term, but I have never tracked it back to the literature to check.

That's what the ClearLight/Dermalux lamps are about- they don't produce much if any UV light.

-WolfKeeper

The dermatologist I went to told me sunlight had no effect on it at all. The snare 04:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all dermatologists are experts on phototherapies I guess.WolfKeeper 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex?

Okay, obviously the "sex/masturbation causes acne" myth needs to be addressed, but the current paragraph feels very uncertain. It states:

Sex. Rumours have had it that both celibacy and masturbation are causes for acne. This is not the case. It is notable however that masturbation and any other sexual activity affects hormone levels and thus bodily oil production.

My particular objection is to that last sentence, which contradicts the main sentence since it suggests that masturbating or not does have some effect on acne. Just for a start, are there any credible studies that show the effect masturbation has on hormone levels? If not, then that last sentence should be deleted. --LostLeviathan 05:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that sexual arousal, as well as stress/anger, raises androgen levels and thus stimulates bodily oil production. Karl Stas 10:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
But sexual arousal != sex/masturbation. It's a tad difficult to suggest avoiding sexual arousal, stress and anger. So whether or not physical/emotional responses can affect hormone levels hardly bears any relevance to the question as to whether there's a correlation between sex/masturbation/celibacy and acne. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 01:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diet

The article currently says:

Chocolate, chips, sugar, milk and seafood among others have not been shown to affect acne. This means that the scientific studies done to date did not find a big difference between acne in two groups of people, one group eating the food in question and one group avoiding it.

Could someone cite a source for this? Everything I've read suggests that no serious scientific studies have been done on this subject. --LostLeviathan 06:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re. acne and diet, I already can pinpoint the flaw of the study design. Perhaps the reason people who eat a bad diet have no significant different # of acne is because they can from a genetic basis. A better study design would be to have a prospective study on the effect of diet on the acne-prone people. This article makes much more sense: http://www.choiceusa.net/news_articleAcne&Diet11.03.htm. --Skindr 14:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

(Skim) milk has been linked to acne [1]. Also, the absence of acne in non-westernized hunter-gatherer tribes, which cannot be explained by genetic factors, have led some researchers to speculate that a diet link to acne does exist. Dr. Alan C. Logan points to the low dietary omega-6–omega-3 ratio in these tribes, as well as to the absence of milk in their diet [2]. This contradicts Perricone, who claims that fatty acids (such as omega 3) actually reduce acne. Milk, fish and seafood also contain iodine, which can also cause acne. IMHO, the whole "misconceptions" section should be rewritten because it is over-simplified (see also my remarks on acne and hygiene, acne and sex). Karl Stas 13:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: Re. acne and diet, more mention should be made of the study linking hunter-gatherer populations with no incidences of acne and a different diet in comparison to what most Westerners with acne eat. Also, the theory of IGF-1 and acne that researcher Loren Cordain has proposed should be addressed, which would make up a decent basis for a diet-acne connection.

[edit] Hygiene

Again, a "myth" in the article that I have some objection to. I've commented it out; the text read:

Acne is not caused by dirt... It is useful to clean your skin, but doing so will not prevent acne. Anything beyond very mild cleaning will make your skin worse because you'll damage it.

The last part is true; it is possible to clean excessively, irritating the skin and possibly increasing acne. But, how can it be claimed that cleaning your skin will not prevent acne? Can you name a dermatologist who does not recommend that acne patients wash their face on a regular basis? Furthermore, many things that the skin can be exposed to do cause acne. I'm not sure about "dirt" in the strict sense, but if your face is visibly dirty, I'd say the odds are good that something on it is comedogenic. Cleansing also can help reduce the cell build-up that clogs pores. Perhaps a better myth would be "It is impossible to clean your skin too much"? --LostLeviathan 06:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Acne goes on about 2 mm below the surface of the skin within the tiny pores. It's essentially impossible to clean out the pores with any kind of cleanser. You cannot clean out or unclog the pores by washing- the pores are way too small.

-WolfKeeper

Washing with a cleanser helps to remove the dead skin cells and keep the pores open. Karl Stas
At best, this is a small effect though. The real problems aren't at the surface, which is the only place cleansers can actually do anything. -WolfKeeper
If the sebum can get out and the pore doesn't get clogged, it will not get inflamed either.
I repeat, the blockage is often deeper in the pore than you can wash. I would argue that if it goes away with washing, then you don't actually have acne, you just weren't washing correctly.
For the same reason, salicylic acid is often prescribed to treat mild acne: it has a keratolytic effect, i.e. it helps to remove dead skin cells and prevent clogging of pores.
It's also antinflammatory, but salicylic acid is generally not very effective either.
But I do agree with you cleansers can't cure or prevent anything but the mildest forms of acne. They have no effect on the root causes of acne: sebum overproduction and the presence of P.acnes.
The root cause of acne is unknown in fact. And incorrect shedding in the pore is currently being fingered as a cofactor. And washing may well make that worse.
However, they are useful as a complement to other treatments.
Sometimes. Only sometimes. Washing is way overemphasised. Acne is *not* caused by dirt. And washing increases sebum production, worsens existing lesions and can excessively dry the skin. It also increases the chances of sunlight damage, which is known to worsen acne.
Some cleansers may also make acne marks fade faster. Karl Stas 22:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All I know is that for me, washing has little to no positive effect, and usually seems to make things worse. I almost *never* wash my face with a cleanser. It gets wet when I have a shower (once a day, but not even every day), or when I swim. That's it. YMMV.
I've uncommented this myth. It genuinely *is* a myth. People with the most superficial acne may have the impression that it is caused by insufficient washing, but anyone with worse acne than that, knows that it truly isn't caused by lack of washing. -WolfKeeper
I never said that acne was caused by dirt. What I'm saying is that when a pore gets clogged, a comedone is formed, which may then get inflamed by the P.acnes bacteria. Contrary to what you say, the mechanisms underlying acne are fairly well understood. Androgens cause sebum overproduction. As a result, dead skin cells remain "glued" to the skin and start clogging the pores. A comedo (blackhead) or papule (small bump) is formed, which then gets inflamed by the P.acnes bacteria, naturally present on the skin.
There is some truth in you assertion that excessive washing stimulates sebum production and may overdry the skin. I concede that soaps and cleansers can also irritate the sebaceous glands, actually worsening acne. But this does not mean that acne patients should avoid washing their skin. I wash my skin twice a day with a mild, non-comedogenic cleanser containing a small percentage of salicylic and citric acid, to good effect. I would certainly recommend washing twice a day with lukewarm water.
I'm not convinced that skin oil actually protects against UV light, as you seem to imply. Karl Stas 09:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't directly. Washing removes the top layer of dead skin for a day or so, this normally protects the skin from the sun (SPF2-3 IRC). Hence washing increases any sunlight damage that may occur. And other common acne medications do a pretty thorough job of this too- Benzoyl peroxide for example- the FDA ended up adding a safety notice about this, after it had been on the market for years.

I'm really confused now. When you say the hair follicle are blocked, do you mean inside it, kind of like say a golf ball in a garden hose, if it was stuck at one of the ends it could be pulled out, but not if it was furthur down?

It seems to me the main problem is the blocked hair follicle. I was on acne medication once- minocin, which was to kill the bacteria in blocked pores (which I did not follow religiously, but it eventually went away), but what good would that do if the follicle is blocked and the same thing could start again. Unless, however, that the sebum would eventually build up pressure and push the blockage out. That it's the bacteria that cause pustules and red spots, and that's only if they are in the follicle before it gets blocked. The snare 19:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Querying a treatment recommendation

Benzoyl peroxide and the topical retinoids may be the best compromise between cost effectiveness and genuine effectiveness and negative side effects in many cases.

I would like to see a source for this recommendation — it seems questionable to me. Benzoyl peroxide has a peeling effect, and tends to dry the skin somewhat. Topical retinoids can also cause dryness, redness, and skin irritation. Using two such products in combination may, conceivably, make the problem of acne even worse by over-drying the skin.

The patient information leaflet for Retin-A recommends (and this is a direct quote) not using "skin peeling agents or toiletries which have a strong drying effect on your skin" in conjunction with the product.

So -- is this a reputable recommendation, or is it just something that someone posted here without thinking about the possible consequences for other people? R Lowry 06:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, no one came along to defend that sentence, so I'll assume it wasn't defensible and remove it from the article. R Lowry 01:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it was indefensible. Benzoyl peroxide, at least, is relatively cheap and effective in most cases of mild acne. Also, its side effects are less severe than Roaccutane: it bleaches textiles and may cause dry skin, shedding or redness. Retinoids like Adapalene are more expensive and nobody seems to know exactly how they are supposed to work. Adapalene didn't work for me, but had no serious side effects either. Roaccutane (isotretinoin) is no doubt the most effective acne treatment, but it has rather severe side effects and it's expensive. It is therefor recommended only as a "last resort" treatment. - Karl Stas 07:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ¿Is popping a pimple the fastest known way to remove a pimple?

What you need are references. Frencheigh 07:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Poll:

¿What is the fastest known way to remove a pimple? A week should be enough time. ¿How about we close the poll on 2005-06-01T00:00:00 (GMT/UTC)?

Is fastest known way to remove a pimple popping it?

Yes:

  1. — Ŭalabio 06:53, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

No: (you must name a faster way with your vote):

Comments:

  1. This poll is misguided. popping a pimple doesn't remove it and isn't a treatment for acne anyway. It leaves an irritated, infected lesion, increases scarring and doesn't clear up the acne. In addition, there is the danger that the pus will get forced under the skin or deeper into the pore, worsening the infection. Here in the UK, dermatologists still recommend against popping pimples (I talked to my mother, who is a dermatologist, about this once) and they're usually not paid for treating patients. On the contrary, they'd rather not pay for the treatment. I think this poll is missing the point. Popping pimples may be the fastest way of relieving immediate pain from a pimple, but it does not 'remove' it and does nothing to prevent others. --Mike C | talk 09:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps what he meant to say is, "What is the fastest way to get rid of a whitehead?" I'd like to know this as well. Popping obviously gets rid of it immediately, and over-the-counter treatments like Clearasil claim 3 days. I think it's really the whiteheads and shininess that bother people the most, not necessarily just the red spots. Oh, and I wouldn't recommend this as a great way to treat acne, but I'm currently receiving chemotherapy for Hodgkin's Disease, and by golly my acne cleared right up! :) I just hope it stays that way after I'm done with the chemo... --Birdhombre 17:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding an external link to site which has 70 - 80 pages of very valuable acne information..

[edit] Moved External Links

I added a link with information on Levulan Photodynamic Therapy to the article. I have had this treatment myself and it is extremely effective. Elaborating in this detail on the acne page seems out of place, so the link is useful.

These links were moved here from the main page:

  • www.mer ck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section10/chapter116/116a.jsp The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy: Acne
  • www.ac ne.org/ Acne.org - Home of "the regimen" - A succinctly outlined plan to help clear skin of Acne. Support forum and chat available.
  • clinic.acnewiza rd.com/moreacne.html What is acne? Very visual description of various acne scars and people most likely to get it)
  • www.beauty-cosm etic-guide.com/acne.htm Acne Cure and Help
  • www.beauty-fitne ss-guide.com/skin-diseases/acne.htm Acne vulgaris Treatment and Prevention
  • www.wasau na.com/levulan.html Levulan Blue Light Therapy

If you believe that any of these are apprpriate according to Wikipedia:External links please discuss here prior to adding them back.
brenneman(t)(c) 08:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

At least the Merck manual has detailed and objective information not already contained in the article. The "What is acne?" page has good photographs of different types of acne lesions. The other links have little value, but the same is true for some of the links that you have kept in the article. - Karl Stas 10:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Please, take them out then! I'd looked at the Merck manual link and removed it, but it you believe that it adds to the article, I have no objections to it going back on the main page. I feel the "what is Acne?" page is too close to advertising, but I'm always open to discussion. brenneman(t)(c) 13:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I think you're going a bit overboard here. Acne in the movie world adds to the article, and I don't really see how that info could be sucked into the wikipedia- seems to me to be a legitimate link.WolfKeeper
I also strongly disagree with removal of acne.org. It's a not-for-profit website, a .org site, and it contains voluminous descriptions and excellent videos of how to apply benzoyl peroxide (it really isn't very easy to apply it successfully, and I haven't seen this much detail anywhere else); plus in-depth discussions of other treatments and the forums are very, very good. Whilst ideally you would copy info into the wikipedia I don't really see how/why you would want to copy this particular info into the wikipedia, it's too detailed, but adding a link helps out the readers of the wiki. And not in a 'helps readers to buy product' sense, which is clearly not what we are about. On balance I think this link should be in the article.WolfKeeper

Can we copy the existing links here and thrash them out? Following that, then any new links we remove from the main page to here for discussion? - brenneman(t)(c) 03:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I have moved this link here which was recently added. If anyone thinks it should be included in the article then please include it.

  • Acne Resources Helpful overview of acne articles and current research

--Clawed 01:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a new ingredient on the market called Praventin, which supports a clear complexion from the inside Praventin ™ is a bioactive protein complex rich in Lactoferrin, and derived from whey. It is patent pending for an application in supporting a clear complexion by enhancing the body’s natural defenses. In a recent consumer study with teenagers it was demonstrated that oral supplementation with Praventin™ promoted a clear complexion, as assessed in table 1. Oral supplementation with Praventin™ resulted in a considerable improvement in skin condition. In table 2 a median decrease of 71% in blemishes after one month and 95% after two months is reported. Improvements were observed regardless of gender, age, or baseline appearance. Two weeks of Praventin™ use resulted in a clearer complexion, as illustrated in figures 1 and 2. The 44 teenagers were asked a set of questions about how they believed Praventin™ had supported skin health. • 76% saw visible differences in their complexion, among them were fewer blemishes, a reduction in redness, and less oiliness, consistent with a healthier complexion. • 83% stated they would like to continue taking Praventin™. The subjects reported no adverse side effects. As demonstrated in the study, Praventin™ can be used to support a clear complexion benefiting the physical and emotional well-being of young adults.


[edit] Dairy products?

Recent anonymous edits overstate the role of dairy products. As far as I know, there is only one study suggesting a link between skim milk consumption and acne. Karl Stas 17:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)



[edit] Terminal differentiation?

I also have reservations about the following passage added by the same anonymous user: "The most likely mechanism of plugging is a failure of terminal differentiation, the same process whereby leaves undergo a metabolic process that separates them from their twig or stem. Failure of this process may be linked to the anoxia produced by increased pressure in the lumen of the duct. This pressure in turn is produced by the hormone-induced overproduction of the duct lining cells. There is a very tight wrap around the duct preventing over-expansion, so internal pressures are thought to build up as a result. There is to date only circumstantial evidence to support this explanation but there is no conclusive proof of this theory." No reference is given. The language is very academic, I suspect a copyvio. Karl Stas 21:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Pimple popping

I removed the following because this is an encyclopedia and not a how-to guide.

. However, if you must pop a pimple make sure that the yellow pus is above the skin level. To do it safely without leaving any scar tissue, clean the area around the acne with a liquid antiseptic to minimize the risk of contamination. Then take a needle and sterilize it with alcohol and run it briefly through a flame to make sure the remaining microbes are dead. Next, take the sterilized needle and gently prick the top of the pimple's surface carefully enough not to poke it too far. Finally, use a clean piece of gauze, hold it over the pricked pimple, and apply gentle pressure on the sides of the pimple to extract the infected pus. If the pus does not come out with minimal pressure, then STOP immediately! Do not forget to apply an antibiotic ointment on the acne after doing this.

--Clawed 22:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradicting text

On one hand the article says:

Anything beyond very gentle cleansing can actually worsen existing lesions and even encourage new ones by damaging or overdrying skin.

But on the other hand:

Exfoliating the skin. This can be done either mechanically, using an abrasive cloth or a liquid scrub...

What gives? Are we to scrub rougly? Or not to scrub at all?

--Vitalyb 11:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toxins in the blood???

I have removed the following text:

However, this does not prove that such foods aggrovate already present acne. Foods high in sugars and fats can increase sebum production, and other foods can affect hormone production.
Spicy foods and such like can affect the intestines and the proper disposal of toxins, causing a buildup of toxins in the blood, which can aggrovate acne. Diet then, it seems, is not sufficient in causing Acne but does aggrovate the condition in someone who already has acne, or is genetically predisposed to it. To say diet does not affect Acne at all is ignorant.
Foods with a low glycemic index like wholemeals reduce sugar rushes in the body and keep sebum production in balance (it is necessary for some sebum to be produced to keep the skin moisturised). Foods that aid in digestion like fruits and vegetables maintain the balance in the gut, helping the breakdown and removal of toxins and prevent them from entering the blood. They also contain vitamins and minerals that aid in the proper functioning of the bodies tissues and organs. Herbs like milk thistle, red clover, burdock and dandelion help to detoxify the liver. It has been sugested that acne ultimately arises from improper liver functions which are not able to maintain sugar levels in the blood and to remove toxins efficiently. Toxins build up in the blood and sebum is overproduced. These two factors combine to produce Acne.

The possible role of high-glycemic foods is already mentioned in the article. The uncorroborated claim that a "buildup of toxins in the blood" can aggravate acne seems dubious. Karl Stas 16:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Cleanup tags

Why is this article been tagged for cleanup. Can someone please list what sections of this article need to be improved. Otherwise I think the tag should be removed as I don't see any real problems with this article.--Clawed 09:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article rename?

I think this article should be moved to Acne Vulgaris; since it doesn't describe Acne rosacea for example. Anyone disagree? (I was planning a redirect or disambiguation from Acne).WolfKeeper 08:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Backne

I was suprised to see that this common portmanteau for acne occuring on ones back was left out of a discussion about acne. I thought it would have its own article.

[edit] External Link

I don't know about anyone else, but i'm i the only one who seems to have noticed that Acne.org is a COMMERCIAL LINK.....here is a direct quote from the site "Drugstore.com gives me 10% of every order made from this page. Please bookmark this page for future orders. Currently the bandwidth charges for acne.org are around $1000 per month". Now if this seems to be ok with everyone, why not other commercial sites or a site with some guy with excellent marterail but has a few google adds on it.

Come on people...........Acne.org is a commerical site for the purposes of making profit, So why in the world is it added to external link section everywhere??????

I guess we have to look at whether it adds to the information in the article or not. The information on precisely how to use benzoyl peroxide correctly- I've personally seen this nowhere else. And I don't find it to be heavily commercial. The guy 'Dan' who runs it does make money from the site and from a dirt-cheap benzoyl peroxide he sells. But he's not pushing it down people's throats to my estimation, and he also links to other guys products that he makes no money on. If you type 'acne' into google -that's the first link; and I don't have a sense that they've paid to be there, that should tell you something. Still, the guy has to pay for the bandwidth somehow I guess. *If* the article subsumes the information on BP usage, then I would agree to remove it; otherwise I don't feel it should be removed right now. YMMV.WolfKeeper 04:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

New External Link, Skin Cosmos Site about Acne. Other Skin Conditions are included. Easy to follow acne information, clean. Skin Cosmos Acne Information This site is managed by M.D Students and Ph.D Students.

Discussion forums are usuaully unsuitable as external links. JFW | T@lk 04:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The link is not to the discussion forum, but thanks for the information we are learning about wikipedia. Acne.org also has a discussion forum.

I want to put up an external link - Acne Home Remedies, that has many effective home remedies for acne. I really hope this will help the wikipedia's visitors.

I'd also like to suggest an external link - Acne Information. This site has articles on acne, acne statistics, acne depression, acne stress, and several other acne related topics. It's a good resource and should be of help to those who read the main article. If nobody has any objections, I'll add it in a couple of days.

I would like to put up an external link

above added 16:43, 21 March 2006 by User:63.165.15.253
Can you tell us why that link is useful, and whether it is authoratitive and unbiased? JFW | T@lk 21:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
A terrible link - merely gives a choice of buttons that perform a number of searches for adverts on google. No additional info on acne.David Ruben Talk 00:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Just to review that everyone approves of all the current links:

  1. http://www.acneinformation.org Acne Information
  2. http://www.fact-sheets.com/health/what_is_acne/ Acne Fact Sheets
  3. http://dermatology.cdlib.org/93/commentary/acne/hanna.html Acne vulgaris: more than skin deep
  4. http://www.acne-resource.org/ Acne-resource.org
  5. http://www.acne.org/ Acne.org
acne.org promotes its own programme, and I would suggest that single individual's websites are generally inappropriate for wikipedia.
There's absolutely no wikipedia rule against linking to single individual's websites- you just made that up. And it's a .org, not a .com website.WolfKeeper 02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not claiming its any wikipeda rule, I just personally think commercial sites rarely add additional information that is of greater benefit than the free advertising they get, unless the article specifically is about that company (eg Coca Cola, The Atkins Diet, Walmart) or has special notability.David Ruben Talk 04:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Look, as a very close analogy, the wikipedia links to Atkins sites. Atkins has a diet regimen and make money from their diet too. This is no different. Except he's not even charging to find out what his regimen is, he's got free videos and information telling you it exactly. The regimen is just a way to use standard benzoyl peroxide you can buy in any chemist/drug store, so that it works well. But you don't have to buy anything from him at all. So he has a regimen, and he sells supplies you could use, or not, big deal. This is not bad or wrong. I don't see that this is really what the commercial rule is talking about.WolfKeeper 02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm less worried (re right or wrong) about an individual's site trying to help others, its more that I see a problem of notability or of giving especially good additional information to a wikipedia article. To put it another way, what is so special about this site compared to the other 2,240,000 hits from a search for 'Acne support' on Google ? Hence the point I raised next about larger national organisations being preferable in my opinion - as they have multiple sources of info (review of current research articles, patient-written factsheets, input from professionals (dermatologists, paediatricians, specialist nurses, school nurses etc), surveys carried out by the group, and sufferers writing to ensure patient-useful information and support).
As far as acne.org goes, it credits its nice pictures from the NIH site, but that site (http://www.niams.nih.gov/hi/topics/acne/acne.htm) has more information.
It has information on the disease of acne, but far less on using BP.WolfKeeper 08:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that acne.org suggests a better technique for using BP; the advice to build up gradually and apply after washing is included in its prescribing datasheets & product information sheet (or at least it is in the UK). The site correctly, and with care to emphasise, urges people to build up its use slowly (once a day and then increase frequency), but to my patients I stress an even slower build up (apply for just 2 hours for a couple days then increase by 2hours every 2 days until can apply and leave on overnight). David Ruben Talk 04:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
That's not precisely the way he tells you to do it, and I'm not convinced that your way works as well. 2.5% is much easier to aclimatise to anyway, and upping it a couple of hours a day is probably overkill, so the person gets more acne in the meantime. 5% BP was far worse like that. You also failed to mention when and how to use moisturiser. These little details make BP work much better and reduce side effects (that frequently stop people using BP). There's also quite a few issues around what kind of moisturiser to use, how much of that to use; as well as exactly how much BP to use at each stage. This stuff may very well be explained in detail elsewhere on the web, but I haven't seen it. It's all a rather delicate balancing act between frying the bug and not frying your skin.WolfKeeper 08:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
So the only benefit of this site I can see is that it does seem a good price for a larger sized tube. David Ruben Talk 04:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
That's not why its being linked though. It's just subtleties of what is presented, that I don't think you've fully grasped.WolfKeeper 08:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Look, I'm cool with it being removed, but to get there we need to either explain a detailed BP application guide in the wiki or link to it. The one's I've seen have been uniformly shit; even the sheets that come with products are really not that great.WolfKeeper 08:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
A National Acne/Dermatology patient group which is non-commercial & non-profit making would be better, but still questionable to fill up wikipedia with these. They give secondary rather than primary sources of data, so unless they are exceptionally good, are generally not helpful to expand on articles (anyone is free to do searches with Google). If the aim is to allow people to contact local support groups (vs provide additonal info) then remember wikipedia is not just for US or UK readers and we surely are not going to start to list for all conditions all support orgs in all English speaking countries (Canada, Carribean, Ireland, Australia, NZ, UK, etc, or even for each separate USA state org) ?
Might I propose that any suggestions for additonal links require active support from other editors (rather than assume passive agreement if no-one bothers to comment) ? David Ruben Talk 01:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
More usefully, might I suggest that you discuss link removal before unilaterally removing them?WolfKeeper 02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The hidden comment on the Links section requests discussion before adding new links (yes I was probably being was a little pedantic by not applying this to decision to delete), but there is little more than just a single proposer for each of the proposed links on this talk page. So similar to trying to reorganise the treatment section into order (OTC least aggressive first, through to GP prescriptions and finally dermatologists monitoring aggressive treatments), I tried to be bold - no intention to upset anyone intended :-) I generally prefer 1RR, so am happy to wait and see views others might make about what range of external links best improve this article. David Ruben Talk 04:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • re Acne.org - Hmmm, you are winning me around. I would though include the site not under External links, but rather as a Reference to a modified BP last sentance of: "It may though cause local irritation and dryness, so should be introducted slowly". I would be very apprehensive about specifying in wikipedia "and also apply moisturisers", for the wrong product could end up blocking pores even further. I can't see how to add cautions about this and indicate what might be the correct type of moisturiser, without an inappropriately overly-long explanation, the quick solution is a reference. I also suggest linking not to the site's homepage as for an External Link, but as a reference directly to the advice at http://www.acne.org/regimen-instructions.html (or its preceeding page). PS indeed always start at 2.5% :-)
  • re acne-resource.org - dispite its '.org' web name, it is just a misleading, alarmist, biased push to Truderma cloaked in support-information respectability
    • Its published by DTC Health whose own http://www.dtchealth.com site lists Truderm as one of their products.
    • Truderm is just an expensive multistage cleanser, exfoliator, & toner before "The Miracles of Benzoyl Peroxide" 2.5% & salycylic acid.
    • For example of push see the product comparison's "Truderma® comes out on top once again" (hardly surprising statement from the manufacturer) against just salicylic acid, roaccutane & retin-A, and seems to suggest only product warnings, cost, side-effects (repeating that of the warnings) distinguishes these with no indication of appropriateness for mild or severe degrees of acne.
    • On the prevention page the link titled 'Prescription Medications for Ane' infact goes to another version of Prevention where it states "Vitamin supplements play a major part in preventing and treating acne" - this is unsubstantiated, has no scientific basis and would be disputed by most doctors.
    • Finally under The Potential Dangers of Prescription Medications I am not surprised to see it leading with Isotretinoin and highlighting the most severe side-effect first, then a 'Drug-Free / Safer Options' section again plugging Truderm, before moving on to the risks of antiobiotics & hormonal therapy.
    • Acne-resource.org is not impartial, indeed see the disclaimer at the bottom of each page "These statements have not been evaluated by the food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease" - the use of the word 'This' (singular) shows the legal status of this promotional site.
    • So in summary, I think whilst some of the description is OK, much of the advice is wrong or cosmetics-industry biased, the review of treatments misleading & alarmist and the site little more than a commercial company's plug. This is a bad site to include in our article David Ruben Talk 13:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. Sorry but I removed quite a few links before noticing your discussion here. I have since reverted. The links I removed were either blatantly promoting some product or were ad conduits via googlewords. Please consider removing the following links ...

  • www.fact-sheets.com/health/what_is_acne/ - Contains no info the wikipedia article already has. Google adwords on right side.
  • www.acneinformation.org - Site is extremely low on content very high on google adwords.
  • www.acne.org/ - blatant commercial site

Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 01:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been persuaded of merits of acne.org (see above) - the description on shaving/wash/BP application routine is a good guide and makes no direct mention of his bulk-sized cheep product in the discussion.
I have though in expanding the info on BP use (including the relevant subpage vs homepage of acne.org as I had suggested above), transfered the references given to the newer <ref name="xxx"> reference details & links </ref> style. It makes reading the article in edit mode somewhat clumsy, but allows for duplicate references to the same reference and requires no manual ordering in the reference section as this is done for one with the markup <references/> :-) The article now has full details of its references rather than having to follow a link to find out.
To generate the PubMed reference details I used an automated tool, see description in WikiProject Clinical Medicine (here) David Ruben Talk 02:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again I have added a link to Acne.org's protocol page. Please take a look before deleting the link. I'll point out especially that a) the protocol can be used with any low-concentration benzoyl peroxide preparation, and the site makes that clear, b) the protocol is not described in the Wikipedia article body, and c) the protocol is unknown by most doctors and is not available from other websites or publications. 66.44.0.192 13:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Can we add below link under "External links" on "Home remedy" page?

  • Natural Remedies for Acne - This site is FREE (Non commercial) and managed by health professionals, hope this link will be useful for everyone.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manjubalaw (talk • contribs). 00:14, 20 September 2006
No - link provides uncited information and little if anything that adds to the current contents of teh article ("add content rather than external links"). States cause as being from "...wrong eating habits and chronic constipation" which is just nonsense (the constipation bit, if not the eating habits too - see current article's discussion of this misconception). I did like neat web page design though, but this is insufficient reason to add an external link. Suggest see WP:External links. David Ruben Talk 02:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Manjubalaw "...wrong eating habits and chronic constipation" I dont think its nonsense....Irregular hours of eating, excessive starch consumption, too much of sugar, fried and fatty foods are also common causes of acne. Chronic constipation is another cause of acne vulgaris. If the bowels do not move properly, the waste matter is not eliminated as quickly as it should be and the bloodstream becomes surcharged with toxic matter. The extra efforts of the skin to eliminate excess waste result in acne and other forms of skin diseases.

I propose to add the largest non-profit acne home remedywebsite currently on the internet. I believe that offering home remedies for acne is something that people would be interested & very relevant in the treatment solutions. Most encyclopedias contain a huge list of treatments, not just viable commercial ones such as the laser light.

See WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: this wouldn't add anything to the article that wouldn't be in the featured version.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Care Products for Acne

Some possible Acne products that you may use in order to improve conditions of your facial acne is: Proactiv (Sold at any mall located near you) St. Eves facial wash Avon products Mary Kay products

It has been scientifically proved that these facial washes have helped many struggling teens with Acne problems.

Comment - prove it! what company are you working for? Facial washes haven't shown to be of much value scientifically. B.S.


[edit] Scrotum Acne

This isn't a joke or anything, but I have acne on my scrotum (or at least they seem to be similar to pimples as they spew pus when successfully popped) and I want to know how to get rid of them. Anyone know what causes them and where I can find more info?

This is not an appropriate place for medical questions, as it is an encyclopedia. However, they are probably cysts. Ingrown hairs are another possibility. There is not much you can do to avoid either one, unless you've been doing something odd, such as waxing, applying substances to the area that may cause irritation or getting hit frequently in the groin. A doctor can get rid of the ones you already have. -- Kjkolb 08:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge from 'Adult acne'

Adult acne makes uncited claims of rising incidence in adults, has a brief description that adds nothing to fuller explanation in this article. Its one sentance mention of just some of the medicated products is in alarmist terms and then states herbal products are safe, yet there is no scientific evidence for their efficacy either.

I suggest perhaps a brief mention in this Acne vulgaris article that acne can occur in adulthood too, and emphasise the possibe medical causes at this time of life (vs the factors already listed as predisposing to its cause in adolescence) e.g. Polycystic ovary syndrome & Cushing's syndrome. The Adult acne then becomes just a redirect to here. David Ruben Talk 14:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Adult acne was originally created with the sole purpose to advertise a linkfarm. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 14:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Karl Stas 20:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adult acne - ?refers to acne rosacea vs vulgaris

Please see text for requests for citations for both incidence and increasing prevelance. I wonder if this is not being confused with Acne Rosacea that occurs in middle/later life and often looks similar to Acne vulgaris. In particular I note the comment in Similar conditions section: "Rosacea (ro-ZAY-she-ah) sometimes called "Adult Acne" occurs in people of all ages...", which is factually incorrect as it does not occur in infancy/adolescents. If so, then this is not "adult Acne vulgaris" and a rewrite is needed to just indicate the possible causes as currently listed. David Ruben Talk 03:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Below is the section "adult acne" that was merged into this article from the short-lived article adult acne. I have removed it and placed it here as it really needs some citations. I also don't see how at the moment why adult acne needs to have its own section as it seems to be covered in general withen the rest of the article.
Once perceived as a disease of adolescence, acne is now affecting 25% of the men and nearly 50% of the woman at some      
time in their adult lives.[citation needed]The likelihood of acne developing or recurring during adulthood has 
increased significantly over the past decade.[citation needed] Certain causes are more likely to be a factor in adult acne. 
These include hormone changes induced by pregnancy, menopause, or the aging process, as well as 
Polycystic ovary syndrome and Cushing's syndrome.

--Clawed 04:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bacne

In the recent votes, 5 voted for redirect and 3 for merge. A single sentance definition is all that is required - the rest seems uncited drivel: whilst it may describe acne being on the back, it needs verification that it is:

  • hereditary ? Needs citing that to a greater degree than acne vulgaris is weakly associated
  • is a disctinct condition
  • needs distinct treatment (acne over face + neck + upper chest is equally as extensive and likely to be easier to treat with single oral antibiotic capsule a day vs cream applied twice a day).
  • more resistant to treatment - nonsense, there is nothing unique at this location in the body. Yes the skin is thicker and makes penetration by topical agents harder, but skin thickness variation is not unique to the back. The skin thickness varies over the face * upper chest too and may require different topical "aggressiveness" in the thicker ares and a "lighter" approach in the thinner areas. (we don't distinguish acne on the thinner skin of the temples from that on the cheeks)
  • "Bacne is also one of the many side effects of steroid usage" - why single this out for duplicate mention (already covered in Acne#Causes of acne).

A quick search for 'Bacne' indicates on Google 26,100 hits of which the top listing sites are for the more cosmetic/advertising-linked sites that this article has already had edit conflicts over, wikiditionary & wikipedia itself. This is just over 0.07% of the 36,000,000 hits for acne itself. Finally PubMed (listing of much of world's medical journals/research) gave an impressive 0 hits !

Lets mention that acne on the back may require stronger topical agents in response to this area's thicker skin and that oral agents may therefore prove more effective and be easier to comply with, than trying to apply topical creams to this inaccessable location (depending upon whow flexible one is !). The rest, I think, should be copyedited out as duplication &/or speculation. David Ruben Talk 17:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should stay away from colloquisms like "bacne" and refer to acne on ones back as back acne.--Clawed 21:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think it is noteworthy to mention bacne/backne as a vernacular term for acne found specifically on one's back.

[edit] Cortisone

I have mild to moderate acne, but I had this one deep-rooted zit that just wouldn't go away despite the topicals and anti-biotics. My dermatologist said something about it being too deep for my immune cells to get to or something, I don't remember exactly.. bottom line is he injected it directly with a shot of cortisone and told me it should go away. Can someone who knows more about this add info about it in the article? Thanks. - Seyon (on 22 April 2006)

I don't think it would be relevant to add to the article. Cortisone was used in the senario you described to calm down a single specific chronically inflammed area within the skin. One might similarly so treat keloid scar formation or a granuloma. However it is not treating a person's overall acne, indeed more general steroid application as a cream over the whole face does not form part of acne treatement, and I suspect would in the longterm both worsen the condition as well as causing the well recognised steroid skin thinning. High enough doses of steroids by mouth can cause Cushing's syndrome, one of whose features is development of acne. Hence I don't think a specific decission by your dermatologist, to treat a specific complication from acne, needs form part of a general encyclopaedic entry. David Ruben Talk 13:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. He did actually have a recognised treatment that dermatologists offer their patients. As such this needs to be in the wikipedia.WolfKeeper 16:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, did not mean to suggest unusual or off-license use of a drug, but it is uncommon (vs all the patients who are successfully treated within General Practice and never need to see a dermatologist or ever then require this), and applied to an individual spot rather than to the overall acne a patient might have. If we are to include it then just a v.short mention perhaps in the section on acne scaring ? David Ruben Talk 19:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Look, all I know is that I recieved this treatment, and neither the article on acne, nor the article on cortisone had any information as to what it does or how it works. Also, a quick googling of "acne cortisone injection" brings up a number of responses that seem to indicate this treatment is becoming more common for deep individual cysts. - Seyon
Note that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, offers a survey of information on various subjects, and is not intended to be a definitive anmd exhaustive source of information, and certainly is not a medical guide. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 22:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia is no mere encyclopedia.. Anyway, the article as it stands is pretty extensive, which would give the casual reader the impression that it WAS comprehensive. So IMHO we either need to cut out a lot, or cover all angles. For this reason, I have added a short paragraph in the hormone section about cortisone injections. I am certainly no expert, and would prefer if someone more familiar with the subject reviewed it, but I've confirmed the information I added on several sites. Seyon
Aside from the fact that wikipedia does not give medical advice.... I think this is wrong place although not sure where to relocate for now. If a patient were to pick at an acne spot and develop a secondary staphloccus infection requiring flucloxacillin antibiotic, this is a specific treatment for an infrequent complication. Yet flucloxacillin has no effect on the general progress of a patient's acne, and it not included in current list of antibitics used in the normal treatment of acne. Likewise the main treatment group of "Hormonal" is/was about overall manipulating a patient's acne through use of the contraceptive pill or anti-androgen hormones. I'm tempted to move the paragraph to the section on treatment for acne scars, although the point of local steroid injection is to pre-empt scar formation. Perhaps a new section prior to that mentioning both local steroid injection and antibiotics for secondary infections (i.e. a sort of 'misalaneous treatment section') ? David Ruben Talk 04:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current links

I would like to suggest an addition to external links from Wilopedia in regards to acne. This article here: www.clearogen.com/research.html provides insight into research suggesting very positive results in treating acne from reducing (binding) free DHT in the skin, thus reducing oils and the associated bacteria and clogged pores. This is published research and data collected and interpreted by Dr Khadavi, baord dertified Dermatologist: www.clearogen.com/dr-khadavi.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cainer (talk • contribs).

Clearogen.com is a commercial site. Is there a location for this article ("Structure-activity relationships for inhibuman 5alpha-reductases by polyphenols") which is not hosted on a commercial site? I would accept it under those circumstances. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 22:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I found great Acne Resources located at www.about-acne-cure.com. This web site provides useful information about acne cure and more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chockdee (talk • contribs).

Rejected. End of discussion. -Obli (Talk)? 08:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Aww, we should still be nice. - brenneman {L} 06:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Another source I found for Acne Resources located at www.infofreesearch.com/acne/index.php They provides article and news information about acne and more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcephuk (talk • contribs).

[edit] Article size

This one is getting a bit large. Any suggestions for what could be summarised better, split into its own article, or doesn't have a source and can be removed? - brenneman {L} 06:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to forge ahead, making notes here as I go. - brenneman {L} 04:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've removed the section on scar treatment as it was already being done at scar, plus I've removed two sections w/o any sources. - brenneman {L} 06:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treatments

A large amount of unsourced material that is mostly duplicated in Scar#Treatments_for_skin_scars was added in the edit above. I've pasted in the table of contents from that page and a precis of the section added, noting where there is duplication.
brenneman {L} 03:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

From this page Existing in scar article
2 Treatments for skin scars
2.1 Simple treatments
2.2 Surgery
2.3 Laser Surgery & Resurfacing
2.4 Steroid injections
2.5 Pressure garments
2.6 Radiotherapy
2.7 Dermabrasion
2.8 Collagen injections
2.9 Other treatments
Since there is no objection, I'm going to go back to the shorter version. - brenneman {L} 06:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced

I've just removed some recently added material that was without a source. Are there any sections that are biased/dubious that curretnly do not have sources? - brenneman {L} 02:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to go through and tighten the article, removing unsourced material. - brenneman {L} 00:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York Times Science Page

The NYT Science Page, Questions and Answers, July 11, 2006, says that according to the latest scientific research, chocolate and fatty foods do not cause acne, or aggravate it. Skim milk, or nonfat milk, however, does: Three glasses a day increase the severity of acne by 22%. Das Baz 16:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about external links

• Hello, how are links to websites that detail personal experience with acne handled around here? The page in question is: How I Got Rid Of Acne - it explains what this person used to clean up her face and what different products she tried. Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.69.136.26 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 September 2006.

These are covered by the policies WP:EL and Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming. That link could be removed anytime because:
  • It's not a unique resource.
  • It contains unverified original research.
  • Although not listed in the criteria, sites with heavy advertisements are usually avoided.
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humidity

Does humidity in the air have anything to do with acne? Is a person living in an extremely humid environment more susceptible to acne problems? —Lagalag 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prevalence

I seem to remember reading something about acne vulgaris being highly prevalent in people of Celtic descent. Is this true? Schprunkel 18:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam (www.CureAcneNaturally.com)

In the section Available treatments, the reference to www.CureAcneNaturally.com is spam. I erased that. 201.228.183.57 20:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acne over the course of history

Does it seem to anyone else that acne, which common and "natural" in the 21st century, is totally absent from man's history overall? When was the last time you saw an old (pre-1900) picture of someone with acne? When have you seen cures for it in ads in old (19th century or earlier) newspapers? Where is it mentioned in old/ancient medicine? What about in literature? You would expect an event so "essential" to adolescence to have appeared as a rite of passage in some culture, but there is no mention of it!

So, does anybody have any information on why acne might not have appeared until around the 20th century? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.174.244.253 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Need to get some good sources, but not 20th Century at all. http://www.stridex.com/hist_acne.htm discusses treatment in Roman times, http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/bio_augustus.htm discusses Emporer Augustus being affected by acne.David Ruben Talk 02:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pigmentation Scars/Hyperpigmentation

There's a mention of pigmentation "scars" in the article - I think this is called "hyperpigmentation" by dermatologists and applications of Hydroquinone or another skin-lightening chemical will improve the skin's appearance over time. Does anyone know of an actual medical article to cite for this? The term "pigmentation 'scar'" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Dianelowe 21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


According to the article at http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040501/2123.html , Azelaic acid is used to counter hyperpigmentation. Dianelowe 21:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This http://www.dermanetwork.org/information/acne_scars.asp page also recommends microdermabrasion and chemical peels.Dianelowe 21:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Only 5 pictures of acne?

I am shocked to find only 5 pictures of people's acne covered skin. I was certain this article would contain at least 100. You all are letting down the readers of this article, of Wikipedia in general, and the entire human race by your shocking failure to post many, many, many more of these gross pictures. --Xyzzyplugh 20:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/c/n/Talk%7EAcne_vulgaris_d548.html"