Re: back from the derm's office

[Guest guest]

My derm. who is a nice, personable man

> yelled at me for not taking

> my antibiotics. This is how he put it: Do you want a

> red face? You not

> taking your antibiotics is like me not brushing my

> teeth!

Hi --

I'm sorry that you had such a lousy experience at the

derm. I think he was out of line to actually raise his

voice at you, but perhaps he's just as frustrated with

treating his patients for this disease as his patients

are living with it. Derms who aren't keeping up with

the latest research or who aren't willing to

experiment with new or alternative measures of healing

are apt to feel handcuffed with the standard

treatments available. But just so you know, I took an

antibiotic for about 8 mos. (minocycline, in fact) and

it never did anything for the redness. It's not

designed to, though it should help with the

inflammation and perhaps some of the pustular

component (provided it's bacterial in nature).

Though I didn't want to start an antibiotic, I knew I

had to do something to treat the acute symptoms

(inflammation and subsequent irritation and

sensitivity, mainly)--once they were under control, I

could work on correcting the underlying problems (like

treating the flushing with photoderm and altering my

diet, b/c I do believe diet contributes to systemic

healing, and I also believe that rosacea involves so

many different internal systems that need balancing).

So antibiotics, though undesirable as a long-term

method, are a useful tool in addressing acute

symptoms. Just make sure you are taking a good

probiotic (acidophilus/bifidus supplement) to

replenish the healthy bacteria that's bound to take a

hit from the use of any broad-spectrum antibiotic.

> I also asked about photoderm adn he did not have a

> good reaction to that

> either and said any kind of photo treatment has been

> shown to lead to skin

> cancer. Is this the case with photoderm? I was

> really hoping he would say,

> yes, you should go for it since I have been

> considering it.

The explanation I received from the nurse who treated

me with photoderm (a nurse performing the procedures

under Dr. Bitter's tutelage) went something like this:

The light source used in photoderm treatments consists

of light from the visible spectrum only. It DOES NOT

contain waves of light that are outside the visible

spectrum, such as ultra-violet (UV) waves, which are

known to cause abnormal cell changes that can lead to

cancer. This is why you can flash the light source so

close to the skin without having the skin react as it

would to intense sun exposure. A derm I saw all of

once when I was newly diagnosed also dismissed

photoderm, but mistook it for a laser procedure and

told me it would only work on telangiectasias (the

visible spidery veins), and since I didn't have any of

those, it would be of no use to me. And she was

supposed to be a highly respected practitioner at a

research university! There are nurses contributing to

this board now who practice photoderm, so perhaps you

can e-mail them directly and direct your questions to

them. They seem to be very helpful and forthright.

>

> I was feeling good about things (partly because I

> have been usuing amazing

> base which helps hide it) but now feel depressed

> again.

Hang in there, . We do, unfortunately, have to

assume the responsibility of being our own advocates,

largely b/c there is a lot of outdated and erroneous

info floating around out there, and a lot of unknown

factors, too. Even the best derms are often baffled

and frustrated by this condition, and they feel

helpless when they are unable to help their pts. My

advice is to continue doing your own research and with

the help of supporters like us, clinicians who

contribute to this group, and, hopefully, your current

provider or a new provider (preferrably one willing to

consider new therapeutic measures), you'll be able to

beat this into remission. It will take time, but your

efforts will be worth it, and then you'll be able to

pass on your experience to others just at the

beginning of their treatment phase.

Good luck to you!

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

My derm. who is a nice, personable man

> yelled at me for not taking

> my antibiotics. This is how he put it: Do you want a

> red face? You not

> taking your antibiotics is like me not brushing my

> teeth!

Hi --

I'm sorry that you had such a lousy experience at the

derm. I think he was out of line to actually raise his

voice at you, but perhaps he's just as frustrated with

treating his patients for this disease as his patients

are living with it. Derms who aren't keeping up with

the latest research or who aren't willing to

experiment with new or alternative measures of healing

are apt to feel handcuffed with the standard

treatments available. But just so you know, I took an

antibiotic for about 8 mos. (minocycline, in fact) and

it never did anything for the redness. It's not

designed to, though it should help with the

inflammation and perhaps some of the pustular

component (provided it's bacterial in nature).

Though I didn't want to start an antibiotic, I knew I

had to do something to treat the acute symptoms

(inflammation and subsequent irritation and

sensitivity, mainly)--once they were under control, I

could work on correcting the underlying problems (like

treating the flushing with photoderm and altering my

diet, b/c I do believe diet contributes to systemic

healing, and I also believe that rosacea involves so

many different internal systems that need balancing).

So antibiotics, though undesirable as a long-term

method, are a useful tool in addressing acute

symptoms. Just make sure you are taking a good

probiotic (acidophilus/bifidus supplement) to

replenish the healthy bacteria that's bound to take a

hit from the use of any broad-spectrum antibiotic.

> I also asked about photoderm adn he did not have a

> good reaction to that

> either and said any kind of photo treatment has been

> shown to lead to skin

> cancer. Is this the case with photoderm? I was

> really hoping he would say,

> yes, you should go for it since I have been

> considering it.

The explanation I received from the nurse who treated

me with photoderm (a nurse performing the procedures

under Dr. Bitter's tutelage) went something like this:

The light source used in photoderm treatments consists

of light from the visible spectrum only. It DOES NOT

contain waves of light that are outside the visible

spectrum, such as ultra-violet (UV) waves, which are

known to cause abnormal cell changes that can lead to

cancer. This is why you can flash the light source so

close to the skin without having the skin react as it

would to intense sun exposure. A derm I saw all of

once when I was newly diagnosed also dismissed

photoderm, but mistook it for a laser procedure and

told me it would only work on telangiectasias (the

visible spidery veins), and since I didn't have any of

those, it would be of no use to me. And she was

supposed to be a highly respected practitioner at a

research university! There are nurses contributing to

this board now who practice photoderm, so perhaps you

can e-mail them directly and direct your questions to

them. They seem to be very helpful and forthright.

>

> I was feeling good about things (partly because I

> have been usuing amazing

> base which helps hide it) but now feel depressed

> again.

Hang in there, . We do, unfortunately, have to

assume the responsibility of being our own advocates,

largely b/c there is a lot of outdated and erroneous

info floating around out there, and a lot of unknown

factors, too. Even the best derms are often baffled

and frustrated by this condition, and they feel

helpless when they are unable to help their pts. My

advice is to continue doing your own research and with

the help of supporters like us, clinicians who

contribute to this group, and, hopefully, your current

provider or a new provider (preferrably one willing to

consider new therapeutic measures), you'll be able to

beat this into remission. It will take time, but your

efforts will be worth it, and then you'll be able to

pass on your experience to others just at the

beginning of their treatment phase.

Good luck to you!

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

My derm. who is a nice, personable man

> yelled at me for not taking

> my antibiotics. This is how he put it: Do you want a

> red face? You not

> taking your antibiotics is like me not brushing my

> teeth!

Hi --

I'm sorry that you had such a lousy experience at the

derm. I think he was out of line to actually raise his

voice at you, but perhaps he's just as frustrated with

treating his patients for this disease as his patients

are living with it. Derms who aren't keeping up with

the latest research or who aren't willing to

experiment with new or alternative measures of healing

are apt to feel handcuffed with the standard

treatments available. But just so you know, I took an

antibiotic for about 8 mos. (minocycline, in fact) and

it never did anything for the redness. It's not

designed to, though it should help with the

inflammation and perhaps some of the pustular

component (provided it's bacterial in nature).

Though I didn't want to start an antibiotic, I knew I

had to do something to treat the acute symptoms

(inflammation and subsequent irritation and

sensitivity, mainly)--once they were under control, I

could work on correcting the underlying problems (like

treating the flushing with photoderm and altering my

diet, b/c I do believe diet contributes to systemic

healing, and I also believe that rosacea involves so

many different internal systems that need balancing).

So antibiotics, though undesirable as a long-term

method, are a useful tool in addressing acute

symptoms. Just make sure you are taking a good

probiotic (acidophilus/bifidus supplement) to

replenish the healthy bacteria that's bound to take a

hit from the use of any broad-spectrum antibiotic.

> I also asked about photoderm adn he did not have a

> good reaction to that

> either and said any kind of photo treatment has been

> shown to lead to skin

> cancer. Is this the case with photoderm? I was

> really hoping he would say,

> yes, you should go for it since I have been

> considering it.

The explanation I received from the nurse who treated

me with photoderm (a nurse performing the procedures

under Dr. Bitter's tutelage) went something like this:

The light source used in photoderm treatments consists

of light from the visible spectrum only. It DOES NOT

contain waves of light that are outside the visible

spectrum, such as ultra-violet (UV) waves, which are

known to cause abnormal cell changes that can lead to

cancer. This is why you can flash the light source so

close to the skin without having the skin react as it

would to intense sun exposure. A derm I saw all of

once when I was newly diagnosed also dismissed

photoderm, but mistook it for a laser procedure and

told me it would only work on telangiectasias (the

visible spidery veins), and since I didn't have any of

those, it would be of no use to me. And she was

supposed to be a highly respected practitioner at a

research university! There are nurses contributing to

this board now who practice photoderm, so perhaps you

can e-mail them directly and direct your questions to

them. They seem to be very helpful and forthright.

>

> I was feeling good about things (partly because I

> have been usuing amazing

> base which helps hide it) but now feel depressed

> again.

Hang in there, . We do, unfortunately, have to

assume the responsibility of being our own advocates,

largely b/c there is a lot of outdated and erroneous

info floating around out there, and a lot of unknown

factors, too. Even the best derms are often baffled

and frustrated by this condition, and they feel

helpless when they are unable to help their pts. My

advice is to continue doing your own research and with

the help of supporters like us, clinicians who

contribute to this group, and, hopefully, your current

provider or a new provider (preferrably one willing to

consider new therapeutic measures), you'll be able to

beat this into remission. It will take time, but your

efforts will be worth it, and then you'll be able to

pass on your experience to others just at the

beginning of their treatment phase.

Good luck to you!

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Rick,

What is Noritate? I am using metrolotion and have seen alot of people

mention noritate in the room.

[Guest guest]

Rick,

What is Noritate? I am using metrolotion and have seen alot of people

mention noritate in the room.

[Guest guest]

Rick,

What is Noritate? I am using metrolotion and have seen alot of people

mention noritate in the room.

[Guest guest]

,

It is *absolutely* false that there is any connection whatsoever

between any cosmetic laser treatment and skin cancer. Skin cancer is

caused by ultra-violet spectrum in sunlight, and (guess what) no

cosmetic laser operates any where near this spectrum. Did you check

on the wall of this guy's office to see if there is anything

resembling an advanced degree on it?

In general, I am not a derm-basher, but my suggestion is to lose this

guy pronto.

BTW, I would advise you to stick with the oral antibiotic for two

months. Like everyone else on this board, I am frustrated by the

fact that a large fraction of rosacea cases can be controlled via

conventional oral antibiotics + Noritate. I understand your

justifiable apprehension about taking antibiotics, but it does help

reduce inflammation.

Rick

> Hi. I had a dermatalogist appt. this morning that didn't go as well

as I was

> hoping. My derm. who is a nice, personable man yelled at me for not

taking

> my antibiotics. This is how he put it: Do you want a red face? You

not

> taking your antibiotics is like me not brushing my teeth!

>

> so I guess I will try again. I think he prescribeed minocycline and

was very

> adamant that I take it for at least 6 m onths (I always stop after

2

weeks

> because I just don't think it's that healthy! and I never seem to

see

> results anyway.)

>

> I also asked about cover up and he prescribed tinted sulfacet. has

anyone

> else used this? (I've used it non-tinted before). I think that it

is

going

> to be the completely wrong color for my skin after dabbing some on

my hand.

> it's too tan or something and I am very white-pale (under all the

red

> anyway!)

>

> I also asked about photoderm adn he did not have a good reaction to

that

> either and said any kind of photo treatment has been shown to lead

to skin

> cancer. Is this the case with photoderm? I was really hoping he

would say,

> yes, you should go for it since I have been considering it.

>

> I was feeling good about things (partly because I have been usuing

amazing

> base which helps hide it) but now feel depressed again.

>

>

>

>

> http://www.angelfire.com/amiga/bluestar/rosacea.html

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

___

> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

http://www.hotmail.com.

>

> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

> http://profiles.msn.com.

[Guest guest]

,

Metrolotion / metrolgel are both .75% metronidazole, while Noritate

is 1% metronidazole. Former is produced by Galderma, while latter is

marketed by Dermik. While it would seem that Noritate should be

preferred given higher concentration of active ingredient, it may be

the case that some people can tolerate the metros better. I would

recommend Noritate BID, assuming your face can take it, because the

clinical evidence (see the literature included with Noritate) seems

to clearly show its positive impact on both bumps and erythema. But,

alas, as always in the rosacea game, your mileage may vary ...

Rick

> Rick,

> What is Noritate? I am using metrolotion and have seen alot

of people

> mention noritate in the room.

>

>