Talk:Acne

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Acne 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)

Pictures

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

A lot of pictures regarding medical things are disgusting, pretty much any medical encyclopedia or text has multitudes of pictures, of burns, keloid scars, tumors, bloody wounds and open bone fractures, that's just the way it is. You have to get used to it if you want to study medicine. Not that wikipedia is a comprehensive medical guide that doctors cite on their term papers, but it's more educational and accurate to see what the injury looks like than a text description. The snare (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

There is an available online resource Acne Vulgaris: Clinical Pictures and Treatment Info for additional clinical images of Acne Vulgaris. I think it would be helpful to add to the external links b/c it shows acne on a variety of skin types, body locations, and ages. I work closely with this site though so I do not feel comfortable adding it to the external links. Burrillr 15:19, 29 May 2007 (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)

"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)

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)

Sex?

This section should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquidblue8388 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

it has been widely accepted that these are not true due to lack of scientific study on the subject I understand what this is trying to say, but on the other hand I don't think that a lack of study is generally accepted as proof of anything. Perhaps someone should change it to "there is nothing in the scientific literature to confirm this." 72.240.220.81 03:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

sex has a massive therapeutic value in all senses, concerning the aids a young person to achieve emotional completion.it is clear that young people in some kinds of societies are very misled about it so it's hard to trust who is writing the comments regarding it here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gt jaya (talk • contribs) 18:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

There's been no double blind study link any dietary component to acne. That's the gold standard. Epidemiological studies are unreliable. For example, I have acne, and used to drink skimmed milk. But I did so, because I had acne and was trying to be 'healthier'. An epidemiological study of me would say that the acne was associated with skimmed milk (actually it made no detectable difference)! Epidemiological studies don't show which way any association flows.WolfKeeper 19:49, 1 October 2007 (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.

"One study [specify] suggested that chocolate, french fries, potato chips and sugar, among others, affect acne. A high GI (glycemic index) diet that causes sharp rises in blood sugar worsens acne" - chocolate and sugar aren't high GI —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.79.203 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sugar is the ultimate in high gycaemia, glycaemia is glucose is sugar. David Ruben ^Talk 21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, as a matter of fact, last time I looked at tables based on the research data, bread and rice was almost 50% higher than sugar; and the highest glycemic index of all was actually a complex carbohydrate: maltodextrin. It seems to me you are confusing sucrose (table sugar) with glucose; they are very different sugars, indeed there are a lot of different sugars and some of them have very low glycemic index indeed.WolfKeeper 03:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing energy content with GI rating, which leads me to beleive you missed high school science, anyway GI is the rate at which your body turns eaten food into stored/burned energy. Simpler carbohydrates such as glucose and fructose are converted fast and have a high GI, Starches are bonded glucose molecules in chains which take considerably longer to digest because multiple different ensymes are involved in digesting it (glucose isnt diggested by enzymes) and these have low GIs. Fists (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Edit:sucrose is glucose and fructose in a disaccaride, more complex than either of its parts and less complicated than starches found in grains. table sugar has a moderate GI but the sugars talked about generally in "high sugar products" are the simple sugars, genrally glucose not table sugar.

I'm fairly sure that something in the product Ovaltine (malt chocolate milk drink) causes my acne to flare greatly, Im not suggesting we put this in as it is "original research" but just putting it out there for people doing research and such. Fists (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Does Ovaltine contain egg powder?

There may be no general rule which foods cause acne and which don't. It looks like it depends on the individual's metabolism. E.g. I get acne from chicken meat and eggs, including cakes and biscuits, anything which contains egg or chicken meat.

It took me decades to establish this, because the acne appears between 5 and 7 days after consuming such products. The more of these products I consume, the more acne I get. Why there is such a delay is kind of baffling, but science ought to take delay factors into account, which also happen in migraines from diesel fumes and some such like. I eat chocolate regularly and in medium quatities, dark chocolate which still contain 50% sugar. 121.209.48.117 (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC) (layperson)

What about the body's pH and acne. I recently saw a video by an doctor (can't really recall the doctor's name) and he was trying to use the theory of the body's pH in the acne and diet issue. He stated that once the body fall out of the pH range of 6 to 6.8 the body's health decreaes. As a result, acne can be one of the many deseases that can occur. Are there any veiws on this? Aradom18 (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would consider this bullshit. How can eating eggs and chicken meat change the pH so that acne occurs in 5 to 7 days time? 121.209.51.139 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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, azelaic acid [www.bodyskin.blogspot.com]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)

¿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)

As far the fastest way to get rid of a pimple, aren't there hand held acne vaccums you can use to suck out the sebum from the pore? Though would this cause any scarring? When you get a pustule of acne, it's already inflammed as you normally can't see a sebaceous gland within the hair follicle because it is so small, and when you can see the pustule it has been inflammed. There's this that claims to restore acne in seconds (but according to this web site, it says minutes)

http://www.asseenontv.com/prod-pages/igia-ultra-clear.html The snare (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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

the correct way to get rid of fluid under the skin which has been segregated into a pocket is by lancing if it serves no more function and it is unable to evacuate itself.read it up on the Internet-lancing-acne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gt jaya (talk • contribs) 17:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Also moved here: Acne in the movie world.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 15:13, 12 August 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.

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)

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)

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)

Lancing- popping with a needle

I have mentioned lancing twice in this article and some idiot has deleted it...if you want references just look on the Internet there are thousands of them

if someone with acne doesn't know how to poke the bastards with the needle,all he will do is end up bruising his skin by using very blunt pressing movements with his fingers, and when the skin is bruised it is weakened and the infection spreads all around

Therefore the idiot who deleted lancing twice should really be given the condition for a while so he can figure it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gt jaya (talk • contribs) 18:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

I think that the Exfoliating part is done after the acne is controlled by other means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.206.200 (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Exfoliation removes the "roof" of pimples so that the trapped sebum can come out. This method is recommended instead of popping pimples. And microdermabrasion is different from scrubs. Microdermabrasion uses particles that are much smaller than the particles found in scrubs. So microdermabrasions don't scratch the surface of the skin (unlike scrubs). Therefore exfoliating using microdermabrasion is much better. Check out this site for more details http://www.facialskincarefacts.org Aradom18 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

I have read otherwise, that toxins in your body do affect acne. Please check this information. - Jessica Walkuski

Can you be less specific?WolfKeeper 01:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the text that was removed. As a teenager, I suffered from such a horrible acne that people recommended a stay at the Dead Sea to me. I think that if someone photographed me then, I would be now in every medical book, Section "Dermatic horrors". I had to change my T-shirts every morning, because they were full of large blood spots. Nothing worked against it too effectively, or had such side effects that it was unusable. My mother then used to visit a natural healer, who claimed that this heavy acne might be caused by the malfunction of liver. He invited me to visit him, but I refused, because I thought it was rubbish. After about one year, I saw that I had nothing to lose and I agreed. After an "energetic procedure", during which he allegedly removed a "bad energy" from my liver (which I clearly felt), he recommended to use a tea of horsetail (equisetum) and common agrimony. I took it with skepticism, but guess what happened: After mere 10 days, the horrible acne completely disappeared from the whole body. It was like a miracle. Since then I don't understimate the ability of healers anymore. And I also see that the causes of acne are poorly scientifically researched. I talked about it with several dermatologists, but all but one refused to even try the tea therapy...saying that it was rubbish.

You can take my case as an anecdote, but a very persuasive one. I have no doubts that heavy acne has a lot to do with toxins in the blood. Note please that both these herbs contain a lot of ethereal oils and silicilic acid, and are used to support the function of kidneys and liver. I don't know, if acne is directly caused by sugars, but personally I observed a clear connection with the consumption of hot dogs and pork meat (i.e. animal fatty foods) in me. Hopefully this info will help to convince those, who still wonder, in what a direction the research should be led. 82.100.61.114 (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

External links

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

• Acne Resources and Information Explain Acne

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

Monkeyman^(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)

Up for approval Acne Information

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.

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)

I know this is not the place, but I feel sorry for the lad when a simple method like the following may be of help:

Do not eat eggs, chicken, or turkey meat for 2 months. Do not eat cakes, biscuits, candy bars, processed meat, mayonnaise - anything that contains egg. Make no exceptions - because it takes a LONG time for the (unknown) culprit to wash out of your system. Do not make any other changes in diet or hygiene. If it works and you have lost nearly all of your problem, eat egg or poultry meat for a test, once. Acne should recur after 5 or 7 days. If this method does not achieve any results at all, try something else. 121.209.50.103 (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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. Monkeyman^(talk) 14:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Karl Stas 20:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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.The likelihood of acne developing or recurring during adulthood has 
increased significantly over the past decade. 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)

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.

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)

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. Monkeyman^(talk) 22:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to add Facts about adult acne located at www.iacnecare.com/adult-acne. The sites provides some fact about adult acne, cause and treatment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IntegrateIS (talk • contribs).

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcephuk (talk • contribs)

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)

Treatments

• Material added

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
Dermabrasion - 2.7 Microdermabrasion - as above Laser resurfacing - 2.3 Punch excision Chemical peels - 2.9 Subcision Dermal filler - 2.8	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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="black" t

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)

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)

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.69.136.26 (talk) 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)

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)

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)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.244.253 (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2007

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)

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)

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)

When building a web page one cannot pack it with pictures. Too many pictures slow down the loading of the page when someone is trying to open it. Then what do you think will happen next? Well...that person will simply click the back button on their browser and go to another website that doesn't have so many pictures. Aradom18 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

#13

what the #13 has to do with benzoyl peroxide? the whole text just talk about it and then slap Isotretinoin references(and bad ones) out of nonwhere

Seaweed

I was surprised to find a lack of information on seaweed as a treatment, and am putting (http://aalgo.com/facial-treatments.html) in the article as a reference to information I found when researching the topic. Although the article is on a site that sells the product, it still provides relevant information, and see no reason why it should be rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webspaced01 (talk • contribs)

Could you please read WP:EL before you add external links? If you believe that you have additional information about seaweed for acne, then use reliable source to support your assertion. — Indon (reply) — 09:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Spicy food

I think this article should mention something about the fact that spicy foods can cause acne. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 ^Refill/lol 04:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Alright, this is a message for Xyzzyplugh: If you want to complain about this shit, go here. I think its a much more appropriate place, and it won't kill you to look at those pictures of acne if you want to read the article. Thomasiscool 00:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding 2 new external links

I'd like to add two external links to this page:
Acne Guide - A patient guide to Acne written by Drs. Jerry Tan, Guy Webster, Roy Geronemus, and Marianne O'Donoghue. No commercial affiliation of any sort.
Acne Treatment - A collection of articles on acne treatment from Skin Therapy Letter (Skin Therapy Letter© is indexed by the US National Library of Medicine and listed in MEDLINE and Index Medicus, as well as being a featured journal in the Dermatology Publisher's Circle of Medscape) No commercial affiliation either.

Please let me know if anyone has objections/questions. Thank you.

R.B. 19:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Herbal Acne Skin-Care

There are some herbal skin care remedies which would obviously work for some and not work for others at the following link :

http://www.citras.com.my/community/discussion/forum_posts.asp?TID=103&PN=1

More on the Indian herbal uses and the remedies. Could be useful for those not wanting to use the over-the counter drugs and such prescriptions.

Uncited, error filled content--requires immediate removal

The second, third fourth and fifth paragraphs of this article should be deleted immediately. The information contained in these paragraphs is completely un-cited. These paragraphs are written sophomorically (in such a way as to be meaningless), contain inaccuracies and factually incorrect material, and serve only to perpetuate confusion on, and misinformation and misunderstanding of, an already too-misunderstood, myth-laden issue.

For example, the statement, "Surface infections are called zits whereas the deeper ones are called pustules" (besides suggesting acne is infectious, which it is not, although a proliferation of a constituent of the normal flora of the skin is involved), makes a useless and meaningless distinction, is incorrect and contradictory. "Zit" is a lay term, that is applied to any acne lesion (as the very first paragraph of the article itself states!), and "pustule" is a medical term, along with "macule", "papule", "nodule" and "cyst", describing various types of dermatological lesions, any of which may be symptomatic of acne. A "pustule", therefore, may be described as a "zit". A "pustule" would be "deeper" (to use the author's word, although, again, it is not the most useful, informative or descriptive) than a "papule" (the red or pinkish inflamed "surface" bumps commonly seen in acne and absent of the visible pus characteristic of a "pustule").

I came to Wikipedia as a single source for the latest references and cited material on the issue of acne vulgaris, as I do for many other subjects, and was shocked and horrified to see the inclusion of such blatantly un-cited and anecdotal material in an article that should be anything but. We must not allow this to continue to be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.252.59 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 23 August 2007

Rather than just deleting, rephrase or provide references for the bits that can be confirmed. Please note it is policy to sign talk pages (use 4 tildes) and repeatedly reverting other editors is disruptive - let them engage in a discussion here at the talk thread you started. More that 3 reverts is so disruptive that it warrants a temporary block to allow stability to return and then discussion to occur on the talk page. Anon blocked for 24hrs for x6 blankings (ie 5 reverts) as per WP:3RR. David Ruben ^Talk 22:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing the 'expert attention' tag

The use of the 'expert attention' tag is unjustified; and by its own standards can never be removed, since how would we ever know if an expert ever edited this anyway? The wikipedia has no way to check credentials. There is a strong case for removing these tags from the wikipedia entirely.

Specifically, this article shows no signs of any major inaccuracies, acne is a condition of unknown cause, and the treatments are laid out and covered in reasonable detail and fairly and in context. More references would be desirable, but this article is by no means unreferenced, overall, this up-front tag is serving no purpose and shows no sign of ever helping, and I am removing it.WolfKeeper 12:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of the "expert attention needed" tag is fully justified; this unreliable article could be the poster child for the "expert attention needed" tag.

Checking editor credentials is not the issue.

If this article accurately reflected and referenced information found in the review articles, guidelines, and medical textbooks in the Further reading section, it would not need the "expert attention needed" tag.

Specifically:

• The Primary causes section is inaccurate and completely unsourced.

I have tagged this section.WolfKeeper 17:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Diet section gives undue weight to dubious speculative "causes" of acne that are not found in any of the reliable sources in the Further reading section.

I don't agree, there is now evidence that diet can make a difference to acne vulgaris.WolfKeeper 17:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Most of the Available treatments section is completely unsourced.

Most of it.. is completely.. these two phrases do not go together.WolfKeeper 17:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• The History of some acne treatments section is completely unsourced.

I have tagged this section.WolfKeeper 17:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Preferred treatments by types of acne vulgaris section that offers medical advice is completely unsourced.

I have tagged this section.WolfKeeper 17:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDMOS#Citing medical sources:

Medical articles should be relatively dense with inline citations. It is not acceptable to write substantial amounts of prose and then add your medical textbook to the References section. It is too easy for a later editor to change the body text and then nobody is sure which statements are backed up by which sources. Unlike many established scientific disciplines, medicine attracts controversy and opponents on even the most basic and commonly held facts.

Most of this article is completely unsourced.

The article has over 43 notes, and a long list of references so that is not really true. I agree that it could do with more references; I do not agree that the expert attention needed tag makes sense for inadequately referenced articles (otherwise the entire wikipedia needs that tag...)WolfKeeper 17:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The up-front "expert attention needed" tag serves a vital purpose. Alerting readers is especially needed for this article because readers may incorrectly assume that the reliable sources in the Further reading section were used as references in writing the article, whereas they were used only where explicitly cited for:

1. the second paragraph of the introduction
2. the first sentence of the third paragraph of the introduction
3. the last three sentences of the second paragraph of the Symptoms section.

Really, I consider this kind of tagging to be tendentious. If you find areas or sections of an article to be unduly referenced, you should tag it or fix it; rather than requesting some non-existent 'expert' to fix it for you. That isn't going to happen. Deal.WolfKeeper 17:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

69.208.163.216 16:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

All you've shown is that the article needs more sources. That is not the same as needing expert attention.WolfKeeper 17:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Seafood

On 30 March 2005 Karl Stas added this unsourced claim (and medical advice):

Seafood, on the other hand, may contain relatively high levels of iodine, but probably not enough to cause an acne outbreak. Still, people who are prone to acne may want to avoid excessive consumption of foods high in iodine.

On 13 January 2007 Fwdanby added a reference:

• Danby FW (2006). Acne and iodine: Reply. J Am Acad Dermatol. 56(1): 164-5. PMID 17190637, that concludes:

To summarize, there is no evidence to support iodides as a cause of comedonal acne.

On 24 October 2007, 69.208.163.216 removed the Seafood subsection of the Diet subsection of the Causes of acne section, which had said:

Seafood often contains relatively high levels of iodine. Iodine is known to make existing acne worse but there is probably not enough to cause an acne outbreak.PMID 17190637 Still, people who are prone to acne may want to avoid excessive consumption of foods high in iodine.

with this edit summary:

(→Seafood - rm unsourced seafood / iodine claim added 30 March 2005 by Karl Stas; source added 13 January 2007 by Fwdanby refutes claim)

69.208.163.216 05:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, you've removed a source and a paragraph that both say that iodine probably doesn't cause acne at normal levels. The bit that says that it's probably not a good idea to have a high iodine intake anyway is doubtless referenceable- I've seen that opinion elsewhere; and it was doubtless a notable one.WolfKeeper 13:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So, essentially you've removed all references of iodine and acne from the wikipedia! So anyone searching for it on the internet (I just tried it) finds lots of dorky websites that all say that it probably does cause acne! Congrats!WolfKeeper 13:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Monopolistic page hijacking

some guy that read a lot of books but has never been taught how to write a common sense encyclopaedic article is hijacking this page and completely replacing other people's stuff with a very dry and poorly accomplished text. I wrote about form and function, I wrote an introduction as introductions should be explaining the colour diversity dimensions form and distribution, causes, effects, basic social consequences, bacterial outline, etc etc...

the guy seems to think he is an authority on the subject but he has not been taught to make an introduction properly in wherever he has been taught,he has no understanding or common sense, dialogic or medical reasoning

All I know is that you rewrote the introduction to include a falsehood, namely that acne vulgaris is caused by staph. In practice, removal of P.Acne massively improves acne, even if staph still remains, and as I understand it, that is the current medical position. However staph and strep etc. are the bacteria that form the actual pustules, but the pustules seldom occur if P.Acnes is out of the picture; the converse is not true.WolfKeeper 00:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

an introduction should provide an overview of the main topics of the subject, depending on the style of the reference,encyclopaedia, science abstract, General reference....

whatever it is, it doesn't look like it's made for a general audience, it looks like some guy with little common sense writing highly technical stuff without actually explaining what it means...therefore I suggest that there should be a general introduction followed by technical explanations in a further parts of the article.

I am annoyed with them because they seem to be some kind of pharmacy shop or something, they have wiped off all the commonsense staff about treatment and replaced it with a pharmacy book explanation which is a ridiculous opinionated overview of treatment, the kind that is promoted by companies rather than scientists.

unfortunately some scientists are unable to differentiate between science and company promoted science, and to provide balanced information covering the topic globally

in any case I mention clinical lancing in the treatment if he would wish to look it up and make a section about it maybe he would learn something.

Re-add it, by all means; but reference it well; and add it as a treatment, not in the introduction.WolfKeeper 00:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

in the process he would also be explaining to people how to reduce problems by at least 50%-lancing is highly effective look the thing up as a treatment you complete bloody idiot before deleting it-would it cost to the pharmacy to much in lost sales to explain how to prevent lesions and bruising?

^^^^ paragraph is not the wikipedia way; the wikipedia is not a how-to, and if what you say is true, you should be able to reference it via verifiable and notable sources.WolfKeeper 00:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

there should be some guidelines to explain to people how to write an introduction -frankly in a proper educational institution, this introduction would get 3 out of 10, and the whole article would be a 5,

WP:LEADWolfKeeper 00:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not impressed with the monopolistic idiot with no sense... introductions are things like age/population distribution/physical distribution/colour/microbiology/small-scale morphology ...

the introduction should be written in English, the guy obviously has absolutely no biological understanding of what is going on whatsoever...biology is all about cause and effect and so is medicine, maybe he should write a little bit of that in the introduction —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gt jaya (talk • contribs) 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The cause of acne is not actually known. It is known that staph is not the cause of acne though. P.Acnes probably isn't either, but its presence clearly makes the condition up to 10x worse.WolfKeeper 00:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why the introduction didn't mention there were bacteria involved at all to begin with. let alone that it does not sound very like an introduction to a general reference. it spends half the time explaining about the technicalities of formation of plugs which is actually only 10% of relevant information of an introduction to the wider topic, irrelevant of what type of reference it is, just relative to the subject matter.

Re:Before editing this page a couple of months ago the introduction was a lot shorter and less informative than it was after. I replaced the information again because some guy takes it upon himself to replaced other people's text entirely which is something that is classed by wiki as bad form, its disrespectful to other users.

so for example if the introduction says something is red and appears mostly on the face and back, the correct thing to do is not decide you want to rewrite everything.

so in my previous example which noted discomfort, pressing behaviours, scarring, the correct thing sanctioned by wiki is not to be erase all this information and put your own interpretation. do you need references for that kind of information as well? Like if someone wrote that birds fly you don't need references for that, it's common sense.

regarding the cause, it is simple biology for the most part- what bacteria are involved(there are many)? what kind of structure does the bacteria infect and why? what happens when it infects? what cause-effects / reductionism is involved? the biological process of the immune reaction which actually causes the inflammation relative to the structures of skin involved? where the lymphatic system fits in? through what channel the infection spreads? why the skin is very reactive regarding immune system? all these things are very simple and common sense, and I think they are just as relevant in an introduction as throwing an in-depth terminology as a form of introduction. maybe people should do a separate page on the detail of skin maturation to mention what cells are involved and in what way.

also you might find time to explain what distributions in size and appearance the different elements take.

some things remain a mystery for example perhaps keratinisation as far as I know, but for the most part it's a basic cause and effect process related to fairly run-of-the-mill foreign bodies/immune reactions/biological concepts

relatively speaking this page is much better written <url>http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/Mosby_factsheets/acne.html</url>

similarly, if you're going to cover treatments only from the point of pharmacological products only, without mentioning perhaps control of food and skincare, it's also biased and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gt jaya (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Narcotics Use/Abuse

I just wanted to explain why I changed "Exposure ... narcotics ... , especially when abused intravenously." to "Exposure ... narcotics ... , especially when taken intravenously." There are legal, medical uses for narcotics, and in the context of Acne, I don't see why "abusing" narcotics intravenously would be any different than "using" narcotics intravenously. Since both are supposed risks, I changed the wording to "taken intravenously." All of these causes are unsourced anyway, so who the heck knows what's real anyway? (my edit shows up as anonymous because I wasn't signed in, but it was me.) 05:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Heat treatment

I have just come across the Zeno which seems a plausible device. I have cited their summary of their clinical trial data which is perhaps not independent enough but seems a reasonable start. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Butt Acne?!

Really?! 128.243.220.21 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The linked article is up for deletion and looking likely to go. When it does, the link will be removed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah - was bold and already removed the section. Butt acne is not recognised form of acne (look up ICD10 codes) and nor is it acne, let alone acne vulgaris (common acne) - but rather covers a variation on sweat rash perhaps leading to folliculitis. David Ruben ^Talk 18:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Allergic Pimples

I only get pimples if I use certain kinds of Shampoo on my hair, even if the shampoo is on my entire body the pimples only occur on my face in the places where pubescent acne occurs. I know this could be considered a rash but it is pimples and it has been suggested that the article on pimples be merged with this one. Is there any research on allergens causing acne? It took me many years to figure out that- hey if I use my moms shampoo my acne goes away, plenty of people could benefit from this kind of research. 66.140.72.126 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pimples merger closed as a rejection. What you describe may be pimples, and seems a reaction to an external agent, but that does not make it acne vulgaris ("vularis" = common form). Urticaria & especially contact dermatitis might be a better terms for what you describe. 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Surgical Spirit/Rubbing alcohol?

Ok, I can't find any sources on this, but i have always used surgical spirit to dry out spots, which then fall off. am I the only one that has ever heard of this? i was surprised to not see any references to this in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraMagnus (talk • contribs) 23:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No lead section?

Why does this article have no lead section? This is very odd, I've never seen an article of this size without one. -kotra (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Would be nice if people could spell SENTENCE this way.

A leader for such an article is very difficult, because like with so many skin problems, there is often a lack of solid scientific evidence but a lot of guessing regarding the large variety of symptms, possible causes, external, internal and how they relate to that particular individual. Like cancer, acne is not a word that describes one specific condition. It describes pimples with pus, of different severity and, in all likelihood, different causes. Specification has been difficult, as food, water, air pollution, beauty products, genetic make-up, metabolism, and possibly the state of mind/stress/hormones are interacting to produce these impurities which can occur all over the body but are most common in the face. Suggestions for treatment vary accordingly.

These types are most common: ........ I'm not an expert but this is how I would tackle a leader. 121.209.50.82 (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead has been re-added. -kotra (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Popping zits?

There is no discussion of "popping zits" ? Should this be included? Kirsted (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. And squeezing blackheads too, although blackheads seem to get their own article, far shorter than this one. People have argued that this is not a 'how to' site, but spot squeezing is a common activity that deserves mention IMO Traveller palm (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Caffiene

Does anyone have any information as to weather or not caffiene causes acne and if it is by a significant amount. Please add this information to the article if you have it, i would really like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.34.215 (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Caffiene on its own is not an acne stimulating agent but as with pretty much every chemical some people may find that it aggravates their condition, if you want to know if cutting it from your diet will help you the only way is to try it. If you do try goodluck, I made an attempt and failed, had withdrawls too. Fists (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"chastity pimples"

The article refers in the "history of..." section to "what were known as 'chastity pimples'". Is there any evidence that this term was actually used? A search finds very little other than things using the info from this page. It sounds plausible given the notion that some might hold that sex would cure them , but at the same time it sounds unlikely that a term referring to this would become widespread. Billwilson5060 (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal merge Acne scarring

After a year of languishing the identical worded acne scar treatment merged with acne scarring. Now Acne scarring's almost wholy unreferrenced paragraphs need trimming down per WP:Verify, and then incorporating into a subsection of Acne#Treatment. David Ruben ^Talk 01:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - as per nom. ---kilbad (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Yes indeed. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Confused

The article states that acne "is caused by changes in the pilosebaceous units" due to "an increase in male sex hormones"..."most common during adolescence". Is the difference between adult skin and a child's skin simply a side effect of male sex hormones? Or is there some evolutionary purpose for the oiliness of mature skin?98.149.117.42 (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bread is known to make acne worse

I don't know if you can find any documentation for that but it's mentioned very often. I tried the SCD diet which excludes bread and it greatly reduced my acne to the point of not existing. But as soon I started eating bread again, it came back. Unfortunately, I love bread LOL 87.59.101.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Toothpaste can help

if you put a small dab of toothpaste on the effected area over night, it may make the pimples smaller and may even get rid of it. if u feel any burning under the eyes remove immeditly. hope this helps!

treatment & causes

1 other cause is not described: frequent touching of the face; fingers often contain fatty acids (even more so if you frequently touch/consume foods containing much fat) and touching the face will make these fatty acids go into the pores, sometimes causing a reaction (acne)

1 other treatment is the use of a simple desinfectant as ethanol; this is found in parfums, aftershave, ... too and can be quite cheap (and multifunctional) unlike the commercial creams