Broader issues concerning Rosacea forums

[Rick]

I welcome the day (hopefully soon) that Nase moves off into his secure environment where he can track IP addresses and avoid any real scrutiny of his many theories. Obviously, people are free to pay to read his latest insights and those of his legions of collaborators. The day of reckoning should be here very soon, where we all be able to see if all he has told us about the 48 +/- collaborators, daily research reports, and so forth is fact or fiction.

People tell me that I (and others) have no right to criticize Nase because we do not understand rosacea like he does. Just remember, Nase and I have precisely the same number of peer-reviewed publications related to rosacea: zero. (His laser book chapter with Bitter does not count.) He told us last January (http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/rosacea-support/message/66924) that he had submitted SEVEN papers to "major" dermatology journals (DT is not a journal). Now, peer-review takes a some time, but anyone seen or heard of any of these?

I will argue I have a lot more respect for the scientific process that Nase has exhibited in the past 3 years. (I have a PhD and manage a group of PhD machine-learning experts.) Cutting and pasting other people's work does not cut it. Specifically, I refer to his "interview" on gene therapy.

And, in my field, as in other fields, there are plenty of theories -- but only those which pass peer-based scrutiny are accepted as truly credible. In a nutshell, this is why I largely dismiss many of his claims -- they are supported by no real evidence. Has he conducted any rosacea clinical studies? Has he published them? Have others reviewed them? Have any of his musings been subjected to any kind of serious review? I periodically send some of his speculation to real rosacea experts, so I have my own peer-review network if you like. I will spare people the details here.

How bad is it? I know someone who published a paper on rosacea remission due to gut transit time in peer-reviewed journal. It went through several cycles of review. Nase lambasted him for it publicly. Why? Because it did not fit with Nase's own "theories", and he did not like the idea that others could actually get a rosacea paper accepted in a peer-reviewed journal.

I bring these issues up solely because Nase does so repeatedly. Integrity is a two-way street.

Rick

[Bob Bear]

Rick,

I think we all acknowledge that Geoffrey's work on the boards is certain of a secondary nature. In many respects, its difficult to critise what he does, as the majority of what he posts is from other's research (which I assume is, or is in the process of being reviewed). Its kind of contradictory to critise someones work, then say that it isnt even their work after all!

Yes, Geoffrey has his theories. But we are all free to think what we want of these. There is a big difference between the research he reports on, and the conclusions he makes (as you are WELL aware, being a man of science yourself).

Again, I think everyone knows how Geoffrey does business - he uses his skills as a researcher to discover what is going on, then he translates this info into something that the 'civie' can understand. This is the truth, not opinions (as I have vowed to stay unbias in this debate from now on).

Whats to debate? Nothing. These threads only serve to insight trouble lower the tone of the board.

Can we not just move on?

Lets not fight anymore...

New year, new opportunites...

[Eric]

From the perspective of a newbie who for the past 2 months has started hearing of these 'politics' on the Yahoo forum and this one, i have to say that irrespective of the fact that there might be truth on all sides (i will keep an open mind on this), i am darn glad that there is someone like Dr. Nase who is keeping me informed of potential remedies out there for our condition.
What i do with this information is up to me. I do not have to blindly accept it or reject it. I can use it to do my own research and decide what is good for me. But i find the fact that there is this someone bringing back this info to us, well, invaluable.
And i agree that, if possible, it would be nice to keep these politics out these forums.
eric

[Petter_Norge]

I disagree, Eric. When a man with a Dr title in front of his name gives advices that sometimes are lies and crap, sometimes even dangerous, you can not say it is up to me and you to decide what to do. I have met very young people here who order accutane on the illegal market after listening to Nase and after their local dermatologist refused them this medication.

[DukeCity]

Well said Eric, Dr. Nase presents a myriad of new treatments and or topicals and orals to treat rosacea. When there are medical studies to back these claims, he presents them. I've never seen anyone help the rosacea sufferer as much as he does, thank goodness for that.

[fut]

I disagree, Eric. When a man with a Dr title in front of his name gives advices that sometimes are lies and crap, sometimes even dangerous, you can not say it is up to me and you to decide what to do. I have met very young people here who order accutane on the illegal market after listening to Nase and after their local dermatologist refused them this medication.

Yes, sadly i'm one of these people. But wait...accutane has been one of the best treatments i've used to battle Rosacea. Damn that Dr. Nase and his false information :roll:

[Petter_Norge]

this is up to you and your dermatologist to find out. If it is good for you or not. There is a reason why only dermatologists can prescribe this medecine in most countries.
I am happy it worked for you. For sure it have helped some people who had severe acne and even considered to end their life because of it.

[scrumptious]

I think its unfair to debate this without the man in question being able to contribute if he wished to.

[Petter_Norge]

yes, and Nase never debated any doctors online when they were not present? huh?

[scrumptious]

Please don't take an aggressive / sarcy tone in yr posting, my comment didn't warrant it.

At no point was Dr Soldo etc banned from this forum (to my knowledge anyhow), so i imagine they could have logged on and commented if they had so desired. Dr Nase cannot due to him being banned, which is why i think it is unfair to debate this without him, seeing as its about him.

[Rick]

Please don't take an aggressive / sarcy tone in yr posting, my comment didn't warrant it.

At no point was Dr Soldo etc banned from this forum (to my knowledge anyhow), so i imagine they could have logged on and commented if they had so desired. Dr Nase cannot due to him being banned, which is why i think it is unfair to debate this without him, seeing as its about him.

Scrumptious,

This has nothing to do with Dr Soldo. It has to do with Nase.

But since you bring up Dr. Soldo, pls remember he is licensed to practice medicine and therefore has to abide by a number of laws (HIPPA being the most obvious), so he cannot reply to Nase's completely unfounded and unprofessional accusations.

Of course, as we learned in the deposition, Nase cannot practice medicine, and therefore is exempt from these kinds of professional nuances.

BTW, I have seen zero evidence that Nase has ever logged in as anyone other than himself, and I find such suggestions ridiculous. The issues are much deeper than this.

Rick

[Petter_Norge]

Rick, maybe for you it is funny. But for the members who maybe let out their deep inside feelings it is not funny to later find out it was all a game.
When Nase uses his Dr title it can make people let out very personal and private feelings.

[keisha06]

I personally look forward to Dr Nase new forum. I value information from all members and would certainly continue to view this and other groups because there is information to be gathered from fellow sufferers that can't be gotten elsewhere but I WANT the "upcoming" information Dr Nase provides. If you don't - ignore it. If you have an opposing view, state the facts, politely and leave it at that. Trust me, my doctor wouldn't have a clue about anything new available to treat Rosacea, I'm sure it would be 5 years old by the time he found out so I feel I NEED this information to ensure I get the best possible treatment for ME.

I don't necessarily believe ALL these new treatments will come to pass or that all or any would work for me - because that is just the way life is. I so look forward to getting that information without all this personal attacking - I don't see the "SUPPORT" in that. I'm able to look through information and decide what might or might not be of use to me (along with my Doctor in many cases). I want as much information as I can get - I want to review different opinions and facts - so I can figure out what is best for me.

I don't have a problem with dissension that has facts to back it up, but making accusations without facts or proof (continuously in some cases) does not serve the purpose of helping each other with Rosacea. To me, there is a difference between an opposing view and attacks. Sadly, in my opinion, what is going on now are attacks.

It is well known that some disagree with Dr Nase, however, some do not. Please leave us all to make up our own minds. If you have information or an opinion, or a dissenting opinion ON ROSACEA (or treatments), state it, give any facts, and leave it at that. Your credibility will be the higher for it and hopefully provide all of us with useful information we can evaluate according to our own needs.

I'm not usually one to go through the gate and then close that gate to others, but I respectfully say to the moderators that I think this thread should be locked. It is not serving any purpose other than to inflame the situation.

Respectfully,

[Rick]

I personally look forward to Dr Nase new forum. I value information from all members and would certainly continue to view this and other groups because there is information to be gathered from fellow sufferers that can't be gotten elsewhere but I WANT the "upcoming" information Dr Nase provides. If you don't - ignore it. If you have an opposing view, state the facts, politely and leave it at that. Trust me, my doctor wouldn't have a clue about anything new available to treat Rosacea, I'm sure it would be 5 years old by the time he found out so I feel I NEED this information to ensure I get the best possible treatment for ME.

I don't necessarily believe ALL these new treatments will come to pass or that all or any would work for me - because that is just the way life is. I so look forward to getting that information without all this personal attacking - I don't see the "SUPPORT" in that. I'm able to look through information and decide what might or might not be of use to me (along with my Doctor in many cases). I want as much information as I can get - I want to review different opinions and facts - so I can figure out what is best for me.

I don't have a problem with dissension that has facts to back it up, but making accusations without facts or proof (continuously in some cases) does not serve the purpose of helping each other with Rosacea. To me, there is a difference between an opposing view and attacks. Sadly, in my opinion, what is going on now are attacks.

It is well known that some disagree with Dr Nase, however, some do not. Please leave us all to make up our own minds. If you have information or an opinion, or a dissenting opinion ON ROSACEA (or treatments), state it, give any facts, and leave it at that. Your credibility will be the higher for it and hopefully provide all of us with useful information we can evaluate according to our own needs.

I'm not usually one to go through the gate and then close that gate to others, but I respectfully say to the moderators that I think this thread should be locked. It is not serving any purpose other than to inflame the situation.

Respectfully,

Diane,

(I have have a rare abundance of Sunday afternoon bandwidth ...)

You may be surprised to hear this, but I think the points you make are entirely reasonable and I do not strongly disagree.

I have been on these forums for several years. Off the top of my head, I can think of four specific issues I have raised with Nase that resulted in all kinds of personal insults from him (the last one culminated in him calling me a "wanker" -- if you know what this is, pls save me a description -:)).

The issues:
1. The chronology in his book is hopelessly convoluted, and a very significant question is why he chose to do a dangerous ETS procedure if all of his well-documented rosacea regimen was so successful.
2. His claim that there was strong evidence that low-dose accutane causes persistent and observable epidermal impreovement after cessation. (BTW, I am a huge fan of low-dose accutane for rosacea, and continue on it to this day.)
3. His vilification of Mark Dahl's well-known multi-center mentronozodale study (this got me the wanker award ...).
4. My careful dissection of a bunch of references he casually cited as evidence that the RRF/NRS grant was a rehash of earlier work.

I am not asking for him to agree with me or anyone else. I am, howerver, asking for semblance of personal and professional integrity.

More power to him if he can get 10,000 people to pay for this. I'll pass, but that's my right, just as it is yours to pay for it.

Rick

[Bradley]

The issues:
1. The chronology in his book is hopelessly convoluted, and a very significant question is why he chose to do a dangerous ETS procedure if all of his well-documented rosacea regimen was so successful.
2. His claim that there was strong evidence that low-dose accutane causes persistent and observable epidermal impreovement after cessation. (BTW, I am a huge fan of low-dose accutane for rosacea, and continue on it to this day.)

Rick, could you please elaborate on both of these points. I, too am currently taking low-dose accutane and am interested in understanding what you are trying to say with your second point. Are you suggesting that accutane needs to be taken on a permanent basis?

Also, I never realised that Dr. Nase underwent a ETS operation. Is this true?

[Rick]

The issues:
1. The chronology in his book is hopelessly convoluted, and a very significant question is why he chose to do a dangerous ETS procedure if all of his well-documented rosacea regimen was so successful.
2. His claim that there was strong evidence that low-dose accutane causes persistent and observable epidermal impreovement after cessation. (BTW, I am a huge fan of low-dose accutane for rosacea, and continue on it to this day.)

Rick, could you please elaborate on both of these points. I, too am currently taking low-dose accutane and am interested in understanding what you are trying to say with your second point. Are you suggesting that accutane needs to be taken on a permanent basis?

Also, I never realised that Dr. Nase underwent a ETS operation. Is this true?

Bradley,

His book documents his ETS. Let me clear: I am not criticizing his decision -- its a personal call, and its none of my business.

But it becomes all of our business when he claims to have "beaten rosacea" using the litany of remedies in his book. So I ask why did he have to take a huge risk if everything else in his book truly worked the magic? Now, as usual, I will get the usual hate mail telling me I have no business raising this issue. I will not raise it again.

I will let him defend his reading of the low-dose accutane literature. Three comments:

1. I lose all impact if I stop it for a month, and regain the improvement within 7 days of resuming at 20 mg every other day. This is a personal observation. I have conducted this experiment at least six times over the past 5 years.

2. IMO, it is not the well-known effect on sebaceous gland activity that causes my improvement, but rather some form of strong anti-imflammatory effect. And this is transient. But, as we all know, your mileage will differ.

3. The clinical challenge is analogous to measuring the impact of exposure to very low levels of radiation. Hiroshima (sadly) provided data at the upper extreme, but for decades, scientists have debated whether the Hiroshima data could be extrapolated to zero.

Rick

[Rick]

I should add that I just was just catching up and did not know that Nase was banned. I probably would not have posted any of this had I knew he was not allowed to respond.

I have no idea why he was banned... and, for what it is worth, I see little to be gained by it.

Rick

[DukeCity]

Rick, - I've based my decision to take low-dose accutane, on the Clinical Studies posted by Dr. Nase. Have you read them? - Specifically the ones by Dr. Plewig and Dr. Jansen, 17 of 20 subjects were in complete remission at the 1-year follow up exam. There were many many other Clincal Studies posted by Dr. Nase on low-dose accutane, but in the end it's our decision on what course of treatment to take. I went to several "top rated" Derms in my area, all of them prescribed metro-gel and minocycline, and all of them seemed less than interested in rosacea. It's great to read of other treatments and successful studies treating rosacea from G. Nase, otherwise I'd be in the dark about this disease.

[prryjones]

//

[IowaDavid]

I should add that I just was just catching up and did not know that Nase was banned. I probably would not have posted any of this had I knew he was not allowed to respond.

I have no idea why he was banned... and, for what it is worth, I see little to be gained by it.

Rick


Please read Brady's post:

Everyone has been treated badly. I pressed the alarm button at least 3 times but nothing was done when I was personally attacked.

BellaMermaid,

I have personally taken care of a few of your reports, but you may have forgotten. As to the reason Dr. Nase was banned for seven days, I have read the post in question and it was an uncalled for attack and the ban is minimal. Marcus has been banned repeatedly and we have tried vigorously to remove his posts but as Warren said as well, I don't read every post on this forum, since my volunteer time is limited. I asked you personally to help moderate. Very few come forward to volunteer to moderate and there is not a moderator on board 24 hours a day and we have to just show up and delete, move or try to repair all the damage that uncalled for posts do while they remain public. We just banned a few others recently. Pre-approval of posts like yahoo does works better since no one sees the damage once it is deleted and only the moderator has to read the trash and rude posts. This job is a thankless and stressful one and I can understand why Mike stopped for a while. But I am very thankful Mike is back. What Warren did wasn't easy, but it was the right thing to do. There is a professional way to reply to criticism. If a post is derogatory to Dr. Nase, we will examine it, when reported to the moderators, and then decide if the post should be deleted. Please feel free to report what posts you think are derogatory about Dr. Nase and I will be happy to examine them. The report button is the only way this can be done using this forum. And if you are personally attacked please report it again. I do check the reported posts in question area first.

We are all sufferers here and this site was intended to be a forum for an honest exchange of information. No one is deified, here. If you cross the line, you get banned. There have been several other users that have been banned from this forum.... When a poster is continually unconstructive and/or fails to respect fellow members, that person needs a break. It's as simple as that.

If you feel you or another poster has been slighted, then start a thread here, in this forum. This is the place to do it.


David

[Callien]

I disagree, Eric. When a man with a Dr title in front of his name gives advices that sometimes are lies and crap, sometimes even dangerous, you can not say it is up to me and you to decide what to do. I have met very young people here who order accutane on the illegal market after listening to Nase and after their local dermatologist refused them this medication.

Yes, sadly i'm one of these people. But wait...accutane has been one of the best treatments i've used to battle Rosacea. Damn that Dr. Nase and his false information :roll:

I have to agree with fut. I also had to resort to creative measures to obtain accutane because I couldn't get a Dr. to prescribe it for me. I decided to try accutane because of Dr. Nase's recommendation. It has been the single most effective treatment I have tried. In case you are not aware, Peter, the US has an ultra conservative government that does not support a woman's right to choose. That is the real reason behind the accutane restrictions. Apparently it is okay to have a child and raise him or her for 18 years and then send them off to die or kill others in a foreign country. Let's just call it a retroactive abortion, but I digress. Accutane works for me and I take a maintenance dose and will continue to do so.
As far as all the fighting goes I don't mind constructive arguments or debates but so much of this is petty, personal bs. It would be nice if we could all just focus on the greater good.

[prometheus]

the US has an ultra conservative government that does not support a woman's right to choose. That is the real reason behind the accutane restrictions.


When did Roe v way get overturned?

[IowaDavid]

the US has an ultra conservative government that does not support a woman's right to choose. That is the real reason behind the accutane restrictions.


When did Roe v way get overturned?


This is so far outside the scope of this forum, I can't believe it.


Please. Stop being simple and tossing molotov rhetorical cocktails.

Don't speak for Americans, or the "government"--all three branches of government--that are currently in power. You sound like a freshman political science major with alot of anger and nothing to support your claims in the face of real cultural and political debate.

This is a rosacea forum. There are plenty of political forums out there if you want to express political opinions.

Don't. Just don't. Thanks.

David

[Warren]

This thread had been locked to enforce a "cool down" period and will be unlocked in 6 hours from the time of this post. If it is not unlocked after 6 hours please use the report post button to get a moderators attention so they can unlock it.

[Callien]

I know this is not a political forum and I expressed a political opinion that apparently offended another member. For a complete explanation, here goes. The thread began by discussing Geoffrey and his new forum, so it was off-topic to begin with. Geoffrey, friend/foe?? Blah, blah.
Petter implied that Dr. Nase was giving dangerous advice by advocating the use of Accutane and that many went against the advice of their doctors and ordered it off the Internet. Fut stated that she was one of those people and that accutane had helped her tremendously. I am also one of those people.
After reading Dr. Nase’s recommendation for low dose Accutane to treat rosacea, I tried to get an Rx. I went to many different doctors and no one would prescribe it for me. I thought it must be an extremely dangerous drug, as Petter implied, and that Dr. Nase must be mistaken. After reading about others success with Accutane, that they had to resort to getting off the Internet without an Rx, I decided to try it myself. To say I was scared $#*!less would be an understatement. “Don’t take anything without your doctor’s consent! Don’t order medication off the Internet! Accutane, regardless of the dose, is an extremely dangerous drug!”
Well, guess what? I tried it and it worked. Beautifully. For the first time that I could remember I didn’t need to worry about my skin. You see, I was one of the unfortunate ones who developed severe rosacea in my late teens. Yet I suffered for years because I was denied the one treatment that could help me.
This is the part where I get political and this is the part where I am PI$$ED. It is my personal belief that I was denied accutane because I am a woman and possess a womb and accutane is a drug that is known to cause birth defects. The fact that there have been attempts, within this last year, to pull accutane off the market and the new IPLEDGE rules only confirm my suspicions
This has previously been discussed on this forum.

http://forum.rosaceagroup.org/viewtopic.php?t=1660
http://forum.rosaceagroup.org/viewtopic.php?t=2610&highlight=accutane

The restrictions on accutane upset me because this is the ONLY thing that has helped my skin. It is impossible to get an Rx for it and it is also becoming more and more difficult to find alternative sources. I write this because I want others to know that accutane is not the bogeyman it has been made out to be. And dam(n) it all, I’m either treated like a criminal by being forced to “register like a sex offender” (as Kelli said) or act like a criminal by obtaining my accutane online without an Rx. Oh yeah, my third choice:-suffering with severe rosacea. What would you choose?
Prometheus, Roe has not been overturned yet, but I predict that before too long it will be. This is why I am upset with the new accutane restrictions because I feel they go against right to privacy. When Roe is overturned then the government can concern itself with women’s birth control practices, namely abortion. But until then-IT IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. I find the concern over my womb ironic considering the current state of international political affairs but I’ll refrain from saying more.
Yes, David, I made a political statement. And you’re right this is not the place for such discussion. But you couldn’t just say so and leave it at that. You had to make it personal with your snide remarks. But I’ll let you get back to your disagreements with Geoffrey and Maria.
FYI I am not a freshman political science student but post-graduate with a major in human development and minor in history. You might want to educate yourself on women’s reproductive freedoms in this country. You could begin with Margaret Sanger and look at the Comstock Law of 1873.

[Callien]

And dam(n) it all, I’m either treated like a criminal by being forced to “register like a sex offender” (as Kelli said)

If I could get an Rx, which I can't.

[IowaDavid]

The restrictions on accutane upset me because this is the ONLY thing that has helped my skin. It is impossible to get an Rx for it and it is also becoming more and more difficult to find alternative sources. I write this because I want others to know that accutane is not the bogeyman it has been made out to be. And dam(n) it all, I’m either treated like a criminal by being forced to “register like a sex offender” (as Kelli said) or act like a criminal by obtaining my accutane online without an Rx. Oh yeah, my third choice:-suffering with severe rosacea. What would you choose?
Prometheus, Roe has not been overturned yet, but I predict that before too long it will be. This is why I am upset with the new accutane restrictions because I feel they go against right to privacy. When Roe is overturned then the government can concern itself with women’s birth control practices, namely abortion. But until then-IT IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. I find the concern over my womb ironic considering the current state of international political affairs but I’ll refrain from saying more.
Yes, David, I made a political statement. And you’re right this is not the place for such discussion. But you couldn’t just say so and leave it at that. You had to make it personal with your snide remarks. But I’ll let you get back to your disagreements with Geoffrey and Maria.
FYI I am not a freshman political science student but post-graduate with a major in human development and minor in history. You might want to educate yourself on women’s reproductive freedoms in this country. You could begin with Margaret Sanger and look at the Comstock Law of 1873.


I was commenting on the flippant nature that Roe vs. Wade was being tossed around in regard to accutane--I don't really see any connection there.

I will NOT tolerate people that are not American categorizing Americans as some sort of Christianized army that are monolithic in their political and moral views. That's it. That's all I wanted to express.

Don't categorize me as an American with some European leftisft chic like I'm a simpelton. That sort of expression of thought only makes the thinker look simple. That's it.

And I'd venture that we'd probably agree for the most part regarding political views and morality and health rights--I DO NOT like being cast aside as some dunce from the States. Thanks.

[prometheus]

I was commenting on the flippant nature that Roe vs. Wade was being tossed around in regard to accutane--I don't really see any connection there.

I was not being flippant at all. I was pointing out a flaw in her theory.



I will NOT tolerate people that are not American categorizing Americans as some sort of Christianized army that are monolithic in their political and moral views. That's it. That's all I wanted to express.

Who are you referring too? You're a moderator for a rosacea forum? Please get over yourself.

Don't categorize me as an American with some European leftisft chic like I'm a simpelton. That sort of expression of thought only makes the thinker look simple. That's it.

Personally I would categorize you as someone who spends a lot of time looking at themselves in the mirror. I think someone was throwing a link out for narcissistic disorder before, you may want to look into that.


I DO NOT like being cast aside as some dunce from the States. Thanks.

It puts the lotion on its skin.

[IowaDavid]

Who are you referring too? You're a moderator for a rosacea forum? Please get over yourself.

*Whom *to

That said, what in the hell are you trying to say? I'm full of myself? Because I'm a moderator on a rosacea forum? I'm doing this voluntarily and my station would be a hell of alot easier to take care of if you'd stop projecting your B.S. onto me and the other moderators here.

Don't criticize the moderators here if you're not willing to volunteer your time to facilitate rosacea-oriented discussion. Can you help this community? If you can, please offer to do so. Otherwise, please leave.

Don't categorize me as an American with some European leftisft chic like I'm a simpelton. That sort of expression of thought only makes the thinker look simple. That's it.

Personally I would categorize you as someone who spends a lot of time looking at themselves in the mirror. I think someone was throwing a link out for narcissistic disorder before, you may want to look into that.

Interesting that you chose the name, "prometheus"--horribly self-involved, with no thought of others. Keep getting your liver eaten out, keep rolling your stone up that hill. Do you have anything helpful to add here? Would you like to spend your free time keeping this bulletin board in order? Yes? No? What do you want to do to be helpful?


I DO NOT like being cast aside as some dunce from the States. Thanks.

It puts the lotion on its skin.


I was responding to a generalization about Americans. Yes, I cannot stand it when non-Americans generalize about Americans and their values and morality in a dismissive way. Do you have a problem with this?

Please--try to be constructive. Otherwise you're a weeping wound on this forum: Annoying and sapping our collective strength.

If you find nothing here that benefits you, please leave.

Thanks.

David

[nikkitn]

It puts the lotion on its skin.

Umm... silence of the lambs reference??

[Callien]

I was commenting on the flippant nature that Roe vs. Wade was being tossed around in regard to accutane--I don't really see any connection there.
Sorry, didn’t mean to start a war here. I tried to explain the connection between Roe-accutane-rosacea but I guess you don’t see it.

I will NOT tolerate people that are not American categorizing Americans as some sort of Christianized army that are monolithic in their political and moral views.
I'm afraid that is how many people throughout the world see us. As an American, I feel it is not only my right but my duty speak out/act against that with which I disagree. The fact that only sixty percent of those eligible voted in the last election is even more pathetic when you consider that this was the highest turnout in 36 years. The rest of the world is watching us so a little self-reflection/self-criticism is not a bad thing, in my opinion.

Don't categorize me as an American with some European leftisft chic like I'm a simpelton. That sort of expression of thought only makes the thinker look simple. That's it. Where did I do that?

And I'd venture that we'd probably agree for the most part regarding political views and morality and health rights.
I think you're right, we probably would.
I DO NOT like being cast aside as some dunce from the States. Thanks.
When I criticize the FDA regulations you see that as a personal attack against you??? That does worry me.

[lobster222222]

It puts the lotion on its skin.

Umm... silence of the lambs reference??


Or Joe Dirt

[prometheus]

That said, what in the hell are you trying to say? I'm full of myself? Because I'm a moderator on a rosacea forum? I'm doing this voluntarily and my station would be a hell of alot easier to take care of if you'd stop projecting your B.S. onto me and the other moderators here.

Don't criticize the moderators here if you're not willing to volunteer your time to facilitate rosacea-oriented discussion. Can you help this community? If you can, please offer to do so. Otherwise, please leave.

I'm saying your full of yourself period. The fact that you are a moderator and try to IMPOSE YOUR WILL BY TYPING IN CAPITAL LETTERS is pretty darn funny. You're not that important. I have already volunteered. I offer my help all the time to the people who ask for it. I certainly won't leave because you recommend it.

Please--try to be constructive. Otherwise you're a weeping wound on this forum: Annoying and sapping our collective strength.

Practice what you preach? Nothing about your last few posts are about rosacea, they are you trying to impress someone on the internet. Pretty sad. However, this is not the rosacea thread so it doesn't bother me too much that you post your drivel here.

[IowaDavid]

Fine man. It's not worth my time or yours.

Thanks for your help.

[fut]

Unfortunately this board is worth no ones time anymore. Why I come here, I don't know anymore. False hope? :roll:

[Callien]

I'm sure Jeff will have his up and running in no time.

[miamifox]

I'm sure Jeff will have his up and running in no time.

Amen and hopefully soon.

[GJ]

I feel we should cut David a little slack here.

Not fun going through life having rosacea and being morbidly obese.