Acne.org Products
Read this off of amazon by mistake. Quite an interesting read. I would love to hear a discussion about this since these guy actually provides evidence. Do i personally agree with everything? Not really, however he makes valid points which i love to see.
"In acne, the pores get damaged and inflammation results. Pathogenic bacteria are there TRYING to clean up the damaged tissue by consuming it. The primary inflammation at the pore results from your own immune response to your own damaged tissue, not to the bacteria, though. In any case, the immune system is not meant to be deployed chronically this way.
Usually, tissue damage would be a sporadic event. Then the immune system would permit a short-term local infection. The scavenging bacteria---called pathogens---gently dissolve, absorb, and compost the damaged tissue as a free meal. Once unable to detect and dissolve more damaged tissue---as all the damaged tissue marked as condemned property is gone---the bacteria start to starve and die. Amid their crisis, the immune system, having exploited their free cleanup help, contain the remaining population before some survivors, through an adaptation called virulence, detect and eat cells of increasing health. The book Wild Health illustrates how this system, untampered with, results in astonishing healing capacity of injured wild animals. Yet generally, by assuming that infection is a crisis via immune poverty, we're perplexed by the ultimate healing outcomes [pages 92 to 93: http://books.google.com/books?id=8FwqLh2a
When the damage to your own tissue recurs chronically, though, eventually there's immune confusion: autoimmunity against your own tissue---which is found behaving like a persistent pest---and needless warfare on bacteria residing there for unusually long. Then you have continual inflammation---acne.
Killing the bacteria perpetuates the cause of acne, because the cause of acne is your own damaged tissue. When scavenging bacteria, called pathogens, are killed and thus cannot consume it and remove it, that might at first relieve some of the immune confusion and overreaction. Yet next, your own immune system will have to go gobble your own damaged tissue even more. This is less desirable than having bacteria consume the damaged tissue.
Pathogenic bacteria are much smaller than your body cells. They eat your damaged cells gently. To eat, they cause these damaged cells---abandoned by your immune system---to dissolve, and then they absorb the waste. By eating it, they compost the waste to tiny volume.
When a woman presents with E. coli on a pap smear, the gynecologist will likely admonish her, presuming she wiped her anus improperly. Yet the E. coli is likely there to help dissolve and compost degenerate tissue at her cervix so she doesn't form cancer tumors there [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16929170] [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650710] [HeLa cells are cervical cancer cells used by labs: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6146569]. Online, you can see a basic discussion of bacteria versus body cells, and how they operate [E. coli is covered on the 2nd page: http://science.howstuffworks.com/cellular -microscopic-biology/cell.htm].
On the other hand, when your own immune system---which has cells called phagocytes that are big and aggressive like tropical water's protozoa that eat by directly munching on cells---has to go clear your own damaged tissue, it's like your cells being eaten alive. This results in a lot of inflammation and, unless you eat optimally, a lot of scarring. And if this keeps recurring, your immune system increasingly considers that tissue of your own body as a pest.
Overall, there are five main things going on with acne:
1) Your fatty acids are imbalanced. Your diet is too high in omega6 fatty acids, leading to inflammatory prostaglandins driving needless inflammation. Omega3 to omega6 ratio is thought to be ideally about 1:1, whereas many persons nowadays consume a ratio as low as 1:20. Omega3 fatty acids restore proper prostaglandin metabolism, creating healing prostaglandins that quell inflammation. And rebalancing your fatty acids will likely make your skin oil thinner, less likely to clog pores.
Daily, you can take a tablespoon or two, though usually one is enough, of flaxseed oil, rich in omega3. Added borage oil, rich in one critical omega6 that many persons have trouble making, called gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), can make a big difference.
The oil ought to not be heated above 96 degrees, like the brands Barlean's and Flora and Spectrum last I myself knew. It ought to be refrigerated both before purchase---or during shipment---and at home, and used quickly once the bottle is opened. Flaxseed oil is extremely rapid to oxidize and go rancid, and eating that is perhaps worse than eating none. I would not buy capsules---whose oil is damaged by heat during encapsulation---and would buy only bottled liquid. I would use the brand Barlean's, which makes a combination product ["Omega Twin - Flax/Borage Oil Combination": www.barleans.com/flaxoil_blends.asp]. If standalone borage oil is ever sought, Barlean's makes the only liquid borage oil that I know of [www.barleans.com/specialty_oils.asp].
2) Your mucosal and skin flora are imbalanced. Your surfaces, because your body tissues have degenerated via previous assaults---antibiotics, vaccinations, excess grain, excess sugar, damaged protein, damaged fat, emotional devastation, needlessly stressful mood, deficient diet---are proliferating nonnative strains of microbes. Essentially, your surfaces are proliferating microbes that are trying to compost you while you're still alive.
Fit tissues proliferate native strains of bacteria called probiotics [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19711025] [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18489317]---which live along with and support your body---naturally, at least if they're implanted in your gut soon after birth by raw milk [The Untold Story of Milk] [www.drrons.com/raw-milk-history-health-benefits-distortions.htm]. Raw milk, teeming in such acidic bacteria, was once used by aware MDs to routinely cure various illnesses, even tuberculosis (formerly called consumption) [ http://openlibrary.org/b/OL7233177M ] [www.realmilk.com/milkcure.html].
You can help rebalance the microbes by consuming soured raw milk [ http://realmilk.com/where1.html ]. The father of modern immunology, Elie Metchnikoff, Nobel Prize winner, tried to tell us this 100 years ago. Or you can make cultured raw vegetables, as indicated by Donna Gates and her book The Body Ecology Diet. Less favorably, you can use probiotics in a bottle, like the brands Natren or Jarrow.
Mainstream scientific researchers are at last catching up. Maybe one day, eventually, mainstream medical training and press will heed the information. Don't expect to hear it from a dermatologist---who instead will probably prescribe antibiotics to treat a symptom but perpetuate the cause---or on the news, or from a maker of topical acne treatments. Fix the gut bacteria, and inflammatory conditions---even periodontitis in the teeth [ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/p eriodontitis]---recede:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19785495
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17852859
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11768558
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18584522
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19018031
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12811208
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18050295
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19235886
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17119388
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19519444
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15220681
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19785495
3) Your body probably cannot process the resins in cooked red plant tissue (and maybe orange and yellow as well). Fat in plant tissue is associated with resin---such as forms amber fossils or forms petroleum in oil wells or are engineered into nail polish which all suggest how persistent these molecules are---and when the plant tissue is heated, the intrinsic enzymes that cleave these resin molecules are destroyed.
Some persons have mutations to handle them anyway, yet if you have acne, chances are slim that you have a mutation to make the enzymes needed to cleave these resins [We Want to Live (2005 Expanded Edition)]. [basic enzyme function is covered on the 3rd page: http://science.howstuffworks.com/cellular -microscopic-biology/cell.htm] When these uncleaved and aggregated molecules reach the pores, carried through by skin oils, they irritate and damage the pores.
Along with grain being highly inflammatory---by spiking blood sugar and causing both AGEs or advanced glycation endproducts and acrylamides to accumulate in tissues and deactivate and scar the tissues and thereby prompt the immune system to mark the useless tissue with inflammatory markers called cytokines to label them as condemned property and thus invite either pathogenic bacteria to consume it or summon the immune system's own aggressive gobbler cells to gobble it---the resins in cooked red plant matter, not the fat in cheese, is probably the pizza connection to acne that some people experience. A cousin of my good friend and roommate in college erased his acne by omitting pizza, which he had previously eaten much and often, though I had nothing to do with his experiment.
4) Your skin surface is too alkaline. With acidic bacteria native to all mucosal and skin surfaces, the body tries to keep what's called an acid mantle. As soap is formed by the action of a strong alkali---called saponifier---upon fat, soap is strongly alkaline and strips the skin's acid mantle. You can buy a low-pH soap (one that's acidic). When my sister had acne about a decade ago, I suggested to her such a soap. She said it helped, and she kept buying it awhile, though eventually her acne went away. I don't remember what the particular soap was called. If you ask Jerry Hickey, of Hickey Chemists, in New York City, whom you can probably reach by phone, he'll tell you.
Yet nearly any soap---even Dove which is supposedly gentle but used to cause me rash outbreaks before I fully recovered from eczema---is polluted with contaminants unlabeled. I fared all right, without inciting outbreaks, using Ivory. Now I use a soap, made by Self Health Resource Center, of just three ingredients---lard, water, lye---the way soaps used to be made. Being what a soap is, it's highly alkaline, but that's okay for me. You can then rinse with a very dilute rinse of water and raw apple cider vinegar, like the brand Bragg's found in virtually every healthfood store, to restore an acid mantle. (Reputedly, there are live acidic bacteria in it, yet I can't substantiate that, myself, since to me it seems acidic enough to have killed its own bacteria, and further I see no gas release from bottles.)
If using municipal water, I would use a shower filter, containing KDF and Chlorgon, to remove the chlorine. Chlorine, a powerful oxidant, kills bacteria and causes tissue inflammation. In fact, chlorine gas was chemical warfare in WWI to kill soldiers in trenches who breathed it [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine#Us e_as_a_weapon]. For most persons, with shower water, the effect is either slow and subtle or just happens on the interior in places, like arteries, lacking pain sensors. If you have a prominent inflammatory condition, though, the difference will likely be noticeable. If you go awhile without exposure to chlorine, you'll notice a flareup after a long hot shower where you breathed much chlorine, or even after walking into a closed bathroom that's had a broken toilet continually running.
5) Your diet overall is poor at protecting and regenerating your tissues. Yet I won't discuss diet, since diet for most persons rivals religion, while just addressing the above four---especially if you cease applying manufactured body products to your skin---will probably be enough to reverse the acne."
There isn't much science to back up these observations. Although I agree that science is far behind in terms of approaching acne, a lot of the statements made here are misleading. Acrylamides, for example, are said here to attract leukocytes and cause inflammation, leading the reader to think that they may be somewhat causative in acne pathogenesis. But the observation that most acne occurs in younger people, with essentially no acne occurring in people over 70, suggests that if anything, there's an inverse correlation between acrylamide accumulation and acne.
The idea of rebalancing skin fatty acids through diet is sadly untrue. While it is true that the sebum of acne sufferers is deficient in linoleic acid, this is an outcome not of a linoleic acid deficiency, but of androgen receptor transcription that leads to a 'misuse' of present linoleic acid. Although, I can imagine that there could be severe cases in which linoleic acid deficiency is actually present. But this is untrue for the vast majority of acne sufferers; downregulation of androgen receptor activity without modifying diet has been shown to increase linoleic acid content of sebum.
What is true is that acne is not caused by bacteria, or by dirt, or by oil, or by dead skin. It's an internal condition, which science is beginning to recognize. The question of what causes acne basically boils down to: where is all the IL-1a coming from? And that question can lead to a number of places, and it certainly isn't a final destination. It's coming from either the epithelial cells or the CD4 T cells/macrophages - more likely epithelial cells, because of E-selectins that bring the leukocytes there in the first place. Then you have to ask, why are the epithelial cells making IL-1a, an inflammatory cytokine? What stimulus is causing this response? And this is where science is now, looking for that specific stimulus. Some think it's because androgens change sebum composition, thus thinning the barrier and irritating epithelial cells. I think this is somewhat vague. And then one must consider that androgens alone are not sufficient to cause acne. And what would cause more androgen receptors to be present in epithelial cells? Genetics? since acne extends to up to 100% of the population (at any point in their lives), I doubt this is the case.
My best guess might be some sort of dermally translocated antigen, but even this has problems - how is it targeted? Why do people get acne in some places and not others? Is there some set of SRCR receptors that are differentially expressed in different locations and can lead to IL-1a release on binding? Who knows.
There isn't much science to back up these observations. Although I agree that science is far behind in terms of approaching acne, a lot of the statements made here are misleading. Acrylamides, for example, are said here to attract leukocytes and cause inflammation, leading the reader to think that they may be somewhat causative in acne pathogenesis. But the observation that most acne occurs in younger people, with essentially no acne occurring in people over 70, suggests that if anything, there's an inverse correlation between acrylamide accumulation and acne.
The idea of rebalancing skin fatty acids through diet is sadly untrue. While it is true that the sebum of acne sufferers is deficient in linoleic acid, this is an outcome not of a linoleic acid deficiency, but of androgen receptor transcription that leads to a 'misuse' of present linoleic acid. Although, I can imagine that there could be severe cases in which linoleic acid deficiency is actually present. But this is untrue for the vast majority of acne sufferers; downregulation of androgen receptor activity without modifying diet has been shown to increase linoleic acid content of sebum.
What is true is that acne is not caused by bacteria, or by dirt, or by oil, or by dead skin. It's an internal condition, which science is beginning to recognize. The question of what causes acne basically boils down to: where is all the IL-1a coming from? And that question can lead to a number of places, and it certainly isn't a final destination. It's coming from either the epithelial cells or the CD4 T cells/macrophages - more likely epithelial cells, because of E-selectins that bring the leukocytes there in the first place. Then you have to ask, why are the epithelial cells making IL-1a, an inflammatory cytokine? What stimulus is causing this response? And this is where science is now, looking for that specific stimulus. Some think it's because androgens change sebum composition, thus thinning the barrier and irritating epithelial cells. I think this is somewhat vague. And then one must consider that androgens alone are not sufficient to cause acne. And what would cause more androgen receptors to be present in epithelial cells? Genetics? since acne extends to up to 100% of the population (at any point in their lives), I doubt this is the case.
My best guess might be some sort of dermally translocated antigen, but even this has problems - how is it targeted? Why do people get acne in some places and not others? Is there some set of SRCR receptors that are differentially expressed in different locations and can lead to IL-1a release on binding? Who knows.
This is where the science is exciting and i love to debate because 1) were actually talk about facts and getting somewhere not just promoting something random or randomness that i often find on these forums.
I am TOO busy to actualy study and lookin to this anymore. I will and have more on my plate and this is too much, but i still love the scienitific theory aspect.
Your comment regarding why 70yr olds dont get acne.
I have to disagree based off of clinical experience. Although more rare in this generation due to decreased skin function which does mean decreased skin oil production, i still see it. One man i know (over 80) periodically gets cystic acne in his jaw and lower check. Another suffers from papules (female +75) why? dont know. I do not recall any of there medical diagnoses or histories...
Whats strange is, if cholestorol and blood lipids change sebum along with androgens, how come those with high blood lipids dont have acne?
btw what is your major?
There isn't much science to back up these observations. Although I agree that science is far behind in terms of approaching acne, a lot of the statements made here are misleading. Acrylamides, for example, are said here to attract leukocytes and cause inflammation, leading the reader to think that they may be somewhat causative in acne pathogenesis. But the observation that most acne occurs in younger people, with essentially no acne occurring in people over 70, suggests that if anything, there's an inverse correlation between acrylamide accumulation and acne.
The idea of rebalancing skin fatty acids through diet is sadly untrue. While it is true that the sebum of acne sufferers is deficient in linoleic acid, this is an outcome not of a linoleic acid deficiency, but of androgen receptor transcription that leads to a 'misuse' of present linoleic acid. Although, I can imagine that there could be severe cases in which linoleic acid deficiency is actually present. But this is untrue for the vast majority of acne sufferers; downregulation of androgen receptor activity without modifying diet has been shown to increase linoleic acid content of sebum.
What is true is that acne is not caused by bacteria, or by dirt, or by oil, or by dead skin. It's an internal condition, which science is beginning to recognize. The question of what causes acne basically boils down to: where is all the IL-1a coming from? And that question can lead to a number of places, and it certainly isn't a final destination. It's coming from either the epithelial cells or the CD4 T cells/macrophages - more likely epithelial cells, because of E-selectins that bring the leukocytes there in the first place. Then you have to ask, why are the epithelial cells making IL-1a, an inflammatory cytokine? What stimulus is causing this response? And this is where science is now, looking for that specific stimulus. Some think it's because androgens change sebum composition, thus thinning the barrier and irritating epithelial cells. I think this is somewhat vague. And then one must consider that androgens alone are not sufficient to cause acne. And what would cause more androgen receptors to be present in epithelial cells? Genetics? since acne extends to up to 100% of the population (at any point in their lives), I doubt this is the case.
My best guess might be some sort of dermally translocated antigen, but even this has problems - how is it targeted? Why do people get acne in some places and not others? Is there some set of SRCR receptors that are differentially expressed in different locations and can lead to IL-1a release on binding? Who knows.
This is where the science is exciting and i love to debate because 1) were actually talk about facts and getting somewhere not just promoting something random or randomness that i often find on these forums.
I am TOO busy to actualy study and lookin to this anymore. I will and have more on my plate and this is too much, but i still love the scienitific theory aspect.
Your comment regarding why 70yr olds dont get acne.
I have to disagree based off of clinical experience. Although more rare in this generation due to decreased skin function which does mean decreased skin oil production, i still see it. One man i know (over 80) periodically gets cystic acne in his jaw and lower check. Another suffers from papules (female +75) why? dont know. I do not recall any of there medical diagnoses or histories...
Whats strange is, if cholestorol and blood lipids change sebum along with androgens, how come those with high blood lipids dont have acne?
btw what is your major?
It sounds to me like those older people you described have a food intolerance similar to mine, and not true acne. My father also still had acne in his sixties, but I think it was probably the same citrus allergy I have and rosacea.
very possible, although at the same time paradoxical if you look into it. allergies of the older generation 65+ are not as prevalent (although this could be to due demographics and geographical location) compared to younger generations.
Allegries can develop over time and then support this idea that acne is diet related no matter the age. So its quite strange how it alll works. I have finals so this thought and the science die for me at this point. More important things are needed my attention.
very possible, although at the same time paradoxical if you look into it. allergies of the older generation 65+ are not as prevalent (although this could be to due demographics and geographical location) compared to younger generations.
Allegries can develop over time and then support this idea that acne is diet related no matter the age. So its quite strange how it alll works. I have finals so this thought and the science die for me at this point. More important things are needed my attention.
Acne in the older generation is also not as prevalent.