Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
D.T.A

Acne, plague of the CIVILIZED WORLD

Recommended Posts

You might already be aware of this, but is crucial that we all understand it's significance in our daily dilemma. The CIVILIZED WORLD is a perfect breeding ground for high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes, and acne of course... (don't worry, that was only a sample of our ailments). I mean, when you think about it is almost impossible to eat one meal knowing that it hasn't been cheminically altered or impaired in some way. Tap water contains all kinds of bacteria, toxic chemicals such as chlorine which distabilizes our digestion, all produce is covered with pesticides, mostly all farm grown animals are sick and not fit for consumption... We can't even breath without thinking about smog... I mean come on!

When we will have succeeded in destroying our planet, then we will have destroyed ourselves. But this is reality, not fantasy, so I guess we have to make best with what we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just the world we live in today or the foods we eat. I believe it's our immune systems are weak in some way compared to clear skinned people. Some clear skinned people eat the same exact foods, don't ever wash their face, and are lazy slobs who don't take care of themselves yet.. have clear perfect skin. So I believe their immune systems are stronger at fighting acne, healing red marks/skin in general, and getting the shit out of their bodies that helps to cause acne in the first place.

If that's what you were trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might already be aware of this, but is crucial that we all understand it's significance in our daily dilemma. The CIVILIZED WORLD is a perfect breeding ground for high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes, and acne of course... (don't worry, that was only a sample of our ailments). I mean, when you think about it is almost impossible to eat one meal knowing that it hasn't been cheminically altered or impaired in some way. Tap water contains all kinds of bacteria, toxic chemicals such as chlorine which distabilizes our digestion, all produce is covered with pesticides, mostly all farm grown animals are sick and not fit for consumption... We can't even breath without thinking about smog... I mean come on!

When we will have succeeded in destroying our planet, then we will have destroyed ourselves. But this is reality, not fantasy, so I guess we have to make best with what we have.

I just don't know what to say. Have you ever heard of the black plague? Life expectancy has gone up, thanks to the CIVILIZED WORLD. Go google it....

Screw it - here I'll do it for you:

IPB Image

Neanderthal's averaged an age of 20 years before they died.

Ancient Romans 28.

Medieval Britain 33.

End of 19th Century 37.

Early 20th Century 50.

Present day 'CIVILIZED' populations: 80 years

Present day 'NON-CIVILIZED' native groups: 34 years.

Acne sure does suck - but I think your theory is flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My theory does not imply that we don't live long, or that the condition of our lives is terrible. Althoug the modern world has made many innovations in science and medicine, some of these innovations has simply created more problems for humanity to face. We can solve some problems, but we counteract this by making more. I mean... why on Earth do we need to ruin our foods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My theory does not imply that we don't live long, or that the condition of our lives is terrible. Althoug the modern world has made many innovations in science and medicine, some of these innovations has simply created more problems for humanity to face. We can solve some problems, but we counteract this by making more. I mean... why on Earth do we need to ruin our foods?

shop at Whole Foods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My theory does not imply that we don't live long, or that the condition of our lives is terrible. Althoug the modern world has made many innovations in science and medicine, some of these innovations has simply created more problems for humanity to face. We can solve some problems, but we counteract this by making more. I mean... why on Earth do we need to ruin our foods?

i somewhat to totally agree wit ya.

in my opinion, onthe side ish, w/e

although we might live longer, we are probably just masking our troubled selves with the technology. obesity killing somone? hey lets make a drug for that. ( a sign that our health is in a detrimental state, were just taking shortcuts sorda to "solve" it)

*the real way to solve it is probably to stop indulging and eat properly and exercise (proper is a rather wiggly word in thsi context)

acne hurts? more drugs and other crap

etc (cant think of any other examples)

and those drugs will probably bite us even more, more people living longer will eventually destroy the world faster right?

excuse me for rambling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you guys all seem to think acne didn't exist in the past? I'm just curious.

I did a quick search to see if acne was around in the medieval times. It seems as though it was......

"Medieval recipe for cure of acne: "the rout of dragons made clean and cut into thin roundels" and steeped for nine days in white wine."

Keep in mind things were a lot different back then. The average person was dirt poor, when you are worrying about dying from hunger or disease - something like acne isn't so bad. Things like small pox would leave some scarred for life; it'd be much worse than acne.

-----------------------------

Okay - I think it's offical - acne is not a plague of the CIVILIZED WORLD.

The history of acne reaches back to the dawn of recorded history. In Ancient Egypt, it is recorded that several pharaohs were acne sufferers. From Ancient Greece comes the English word 'acne' (meaning 'point' or 'peak'). Acne treatments are also of considerable antiquity:

Ancient Rome : bathing in hot, and often sulfurous, mineral water was one of the few available acne treatments. One of the earliest texts to mention skin problems is De Medicina by the Roman writer Celsus.

1800s: Nineteenth century dermatologists used sulphur in the treatment of acne. It was believed to dry the skin.

1920s: Benzoyl Peroxide is used

1930s: Laxatives were used as a cure for what were known as 'chastity pimples'

1950s: When antibiotics became available, it was discovered that they had beneficial effects on acne. They were taken orally to begin with. Topical antibiotics became available later.

1960s: Vitamin A acid and Retin A were found effective for acne. This led to the development of isotretinoin sold as Accutane and Roaccutane in the 1980s.

1990s: Laser treatment introduced

2000s: Blue/red light therapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you guys all seem to think acne didn't exist in the past? I'm just curious.

I did a quick search to see if acne was around in the medieval times. It seems as though it was......

"Medieval recipe for cure of acne: "the rout of dragons made clean and cut into thin roundels" and steeped for nine days in white wine."

Keep in mind things were a lot different back then. The average person was dirt poor, when you are worrying about dying from hunger or disease - something like acne isn't so bad. Things like small pox would leave some scarred for life; it'd be much worse than acne.

-----------------------------

Okay - I think it's offical - acne is not a plague of the CIVILIZED WORLD.

The history of acne reaches back to the dawn of recorded history. In Ancient Egypt, it is recorded that several pharaohs were acne sufferers. From Ancient Greece comes the English word 'acne' (meaning 'point' or 'peak'). Acne treatments are also of considerable antiquity:

That would prove Cordain point though

A recent researches showed that Egyptian had poor teeth health and that their bad teeth were proportionated to their wealth which meant for them a diet richer in refined bread and sweets and lower in plants.

Yeah, we think of refined products as a product of the industrial era but actually egyptian already knew how to totally remove the germ from the kernel and make completely white bread

Romans: again another population whose staple was bread. It was romans the first to invent the big wood ovens were 1400 years later the first pizza was going to be cooked

And that's actually the solution to the semantic of this post

Egyptian and Romans were the civilized world

We must not consider the civilized world according to how old it is but according to its characteristics compared to the other populations next to it

In ancient times the Romans and Egyptian were the civilized modern worlds of those times

And they had acne

By contrast there's no evidence that the vickings and germanic had acne

In modern times the Western countries are the civilized modern world

And we have the worst acne incidence ever (89% for teens and 59% for adults)

By contrast there's no evidence that non-western populations like Kitavans or Kalahari get acne or more than 0.3%

What is the consistent difference among these population?

First their diet and second their consumption of white bread

In other words the fact that Romans and Egyptian were struggling with acne is a further evidence that acne is INDEED a plague of CIVILIZED WORLD

About the longevity data: they're inherently flawed

Now experts agree that our belief that we added 30 years to our life expectancy is wrong

What happened is this.

90 and more years ago couples used to use more children. On average a family had 6 children.

My grandmother had 12 children (my aunts and uncles) and as she said to me this wasn't considered strange at all and no one even found the fact extraordinary

But people were poorer on average that's because the highest percentage of the work was supplied either through factories or through farms by rich owners who provided a very small percentage of the income of the activity to its workers

Hence it was common for at least 40-50% of the children to die the first years of their life.

They were many, food was scarce and only the strongest ones could survive

Children were also weaker than nowadays because mothers were weaker ... often there was not enough food available to them and yet they had to undergo five, six or even twelve pregnancies

Past the first years of childhood they were considered safer but the first years were critical

Infant mortality switch from 100 out of 1000 babies to 9 out of 1000 babies

This is statistically problematic because the calculation is not made according to the average age an old people was expected to die but according to the average age that at which people were supposed to die and we had a huge percentage of these people dying at 2 years old or 4 years old.

The statistical count of average longevity doesn't discriminate between death age of adult age and death age of childhood age

Putting it into perspective if in 1900 out of 100 children 50 of them die in their infancy and 50 of them live to be 100 years old the resulting life expectancy (according to the statistical count) is 50 years !

If in 1980 out of 100 children none of them die in their infancy and all of them live to be 75 years old the resulting life expectancy is 75 years

This is very misleading though because life expectancy results lower when the people who passed their 50's live longer than when those people die sooner. This is because infant mortality counfound the calculus

And this applies to the said life expectancy of 25 of old Greeks

It isn't true that the average person died at 25 but that their infant mortality rate was very high

We must consider that health care is doing nothing to increase our life expectancy

The only common denominator is food.

More people nowadays have access to all the food they want

How many people in this board can be considered rich?

And how many of you no-rich can, if willing, go to the mall and buy whatever food they want?

In the past only very rich people could do this.

My grandmother explained to me that it was not uncommon for them to live 7 days eating nothing but dried white bread softened with salted water. That was not due though to a "natural" lack of food that we overcame with technology but to political management were rich owners of farm-based or industrial-based companies let their dependents die of starvation by paying less less than what they deserved for ther work or leaving them just a minimum percentage of the vegetables and fruits they harvested

Given our exceptional access to food even for less than middle classes it is quite shocking that once the babies mortality counfonding data is kept out we appear, once crossed the 60 years mark, to live on average 2 years more than 100 years ago!

Yes, once crossed the 60 years mark a person in 1900 could expect on average to live another 18 years, 100 years later we can expect, once crossed the 60 years mark, to live another 20 years .... and that given that we're often only children having access to whatever food we want and never being compelled to eat nothing but dried bread for a week while 100 years ago they were weaker individual out of 5, 6 or 12 or more siblings struggling to find enough food daily

That's not all though

According to the Center for Disease Control our generation of youths will be the only once in history to have a lower life expectancy than their parents. It is estimated that in 2010 49% of children will have diabetes and 52% of them will be obese

I suggest this book by Nancy Appleton Ph.D. to realize that germs and bacterical diseases have never been the common denominator in our health and that explains why modern medical care did nothing to increase our life span (except for instances of emergency surgery that would save us from accidents that would have killed us in the past)

Lifting the Curse of Louis Pasteur

Let's not forget that although we nowadays accept the germ/bacterial health model promoted by Pasteur he himself admitted before his death that the "terrain is everything" meaning that germs are not pathogenic by themselves but can only become such in a predisposed (by nutrition) body environment. Unfortunately it was too late to change the dominating dogma he himself created and his last admissions have been ignored

The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt that life expectancy data is correct. Given historical observations, I would say that it's almost surely false. Noninfectious diseases are far more common today than they were even 40 years ago. Cancer, for example, is a universal plague that has everyone scared, and yet it can be almost completely avoided by lifestyle changes. Most likely the person who is adamant about their health will never have to face cancer.

Fact of the matter is, people just don't care. For most, it's not a matter of a special diet. A good, clean diet full of nutrient-dense foods tailored to your personal tastes and eating habits would be sufficient. A little exercise here and there. Some sunshine, adequate rest, and friendly interaction with other humans. This is all enough to keep the VAST majority of people healthy and happy and to give them longevity. People aren't attentive to their health; some even go to great lengths to destroy it. It's a people problem.

There are plenty of pitfalls in the modern world, but they can all be avoided. For everything they throw at us, there is an antithesis. There are alternatives. Say "no" to poison. It's as simple as that. Food, water, lifestyles, vaccines, air, surgery, medications. Just don't do it. Find the alternatives and stay healthy. It's really not that hard.

Acne is the plague of genetics. And unwise health choices to add. Because we do all have a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ that is one joyful post, if thats true then we are all pretty much doomed. The plus side being we are all living longer :).

Yeah, all the meanwhile taking 8 prescription drugs and then crying crocodile tears that the government and/or private sector doesn't pay for all of these expensive drugs....boo hoo hooooooooooooooo..... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ that is one joyful post, if thats true then we are all pretty much doomed. The plus side being we are all living longer :).

We aren't

Read how longevity statistics are confounded

And even if we happened to gain 1.5 years it is not because of health reasons or hygiene or hospitals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you guys all seem to think acne didn't exist in the past? I'm just curious.

I did a quick search to see if acne was around in the medieval times. It seems as though it was......

"Medieval recipe for cure of acne: "the rout of dragons made clean and cut into thin roundels" and steeped for nine days in white wine."

Keep in mind things were a lot different back then. The average person was dirt poor, when you are worrying about dying from hunger or disease - something like acne isn't so bad. Things like small pox would leave some scarred for life; it'd be much worse than acne.

-----------------------------

Okay - I think it's offical - acne is not a plague of the CIVILIZED WORLD.

The history of acne reaches back to the dawn of recorded history. In Ancient Egypt, it is recorded that several pharaohs were acne sufferers. From Ancient Greece comes the English word 'acne' (meaning 'point' or 'peak'). Acne treatments are also of considerable antiquity:

That would prove Cordain point though

A recent researches showed that Egyptian had poor teeth health and that their bad teeth were proportionated to their wealth which meant for them a diet richer in refined bread and sweets and lower in plants.

Yeah, we think of refined products as a product of the industrial era but actually egyptian already knew how to totally remove the germ from the kernel and make completely white bread

Romans: again another population whose staple was bread. It was romans the first to invent the big wood ovens were 1400 years later the first pizza was going to be cooked

And that's actually the solution to the semantic of this post

Egyptian and Romans were the civilized world

We must not consider the civilized world according to how old it is but according to its characteristics compared to the other populations next to it

In ancient times the Romans and Egyptian were the civilized modern worlds of those times

And they had acne

By contrast there's no evidence that the vickings and germanic had acne

In modern times the Western countries are the civilized modern world

And we have the worst acne incidence ever (89% for teens and 59% for adults)

By contrast there's no evidence that non-western populations like Kitavans or Kalahari get acne or more than 0.3%

What is the consistent difference among these population?

First their diet and second their consumption of white bread

In other words the fact that Romans and Egyptian were struggling with acne is a further evidence that acne is INDEED a plague of CIVILIZED WORLD

About the longevity data: they're inherently flawed

Now experts agree that our belief that we added 30 years to our life expectancy is wrong

What happened is this.

90 and more years ago couples used to use more children. On average a family had 6 children.

My grandmother had 12 children (my aunts and uncles) and as she said to me this wasn't considered strange at all and no one even found the fact extraordinary

But people were poorer on average that's because the highest percentage of the work was supplied either through factories or through farms by rich owners who provided a very small percentage of the income of the activity to its workers

Hence it was common for at least 40-50% of the children to die the first years of their life.

They were many, food was scarce and only the strongest ones could survive

Children were also weaker than nowadays because mothers were weaker ... often there was not enough food available to them and yet they had to undergo five, six or even twelve pregnancies

Past the first years of childhood they were considered safer but the first years were critical

Infant mortality switch from 100 out of 1000 babies to 9 out of 1000 babies

This is statistically problematic because the calculation is not made according to the average age an old people was expected to die but according to the average age that at which people were supposed to die and we had a huge percentage of these people dying at 2 years old or 4 years old.

The statistical count of average longevity doesn't discriminate between death age of adult age and death age of childhood age

Putting it into perspective if in 1900 out of 100 children 50 of them die in their infancy and 50 of them live to be 100 years old the resulting life expectancy (according to the statistical count) is 50 years !

If in 1980 out of 100 children none of them die in their infancy and all of them live to be 75 years old the resulting life expectancy is 75 years

This is very misleading though because life expectancy results lower when the people who passed their 50's live longer than when those people die sooner. This is because infant mortality counfound the calculus

And this applies to the said life expectancy of 25 of old Greeks

It isn't true that the average person died at 25 but that their infant mortality rate was very high

We must consider that health care is doing nothing to increase our life expectancy

The only common denominator is food.

More people nowadays have access to all the food they want

How many people in this board can be considered rich?

And how many of you no-rich can, if willing, go to the mall and buy whatever food they want?

In the past only very rich people could do this.

My grandmother explained to me that it was not uncommon for them to live 7 days eating nothing but dried white bread softened with salted water. That was not due though to a "natural" lack of food that we overcame with technology but to political management were rich owners of farm-based or industrial-based companies let their dependents die of starvation by paying less less than what they deserved for ther work or leaving them just a minimum percentage of the vegetables and fruits they harvested

Given our exceptional access to food even for less than middle classes it is quite shocking that once the babies mortality counfonding data is kept out we appear, once crossed the 60 years mark, to live on average 2 years more than 100 years ago!

Yes, once crossed the 60 years mark a person in 1900 could expect on average to live another 18 years, 100 years later we can expect, once crossed the 60 years mark, to live another 20 years .... and that given that we're often only children having access to whatever food we want and never being compelled to eat nothing but dried bread for a week while 100 years ago they were weaker individual out of 5, 6 or 12 or more siblings struggling to find enough food daily

That's not all though

According to the Center for Disease Control our generation of youths will be the only once in history to have a lower life expectancy than their parents. It is estimated that in 2010 49% of children will have diabetes and 52% of them will be obese

I suggest this book by Nancy Appleton Ph.D. to realize that germs and bacterical diseases have never been the common denominator in our health and that explains why modern medical care did nothing to increase our life span (except for instances of emergency surgery that would save us from accidents that would have killed us in the past)

Lifting the Curse of Louis Pasteur

Let's not forget that although we nowadays accept the germ/bacterial health model promoted by Pasteur he himself admitted before his death that the "terrain is everything" meaning that germs are not pathogenic by themselves but can only become such in a predisposed (by nutrition) body environment. Unfortunately it was too late to change the dominating dogma he himself created and his last admissions have been ignored

The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur

I'm defining 'civilized' in the same way as the OP....

1.) almost impossible to eat one meal knowing that it hasn't been cheminically altered or impaired in some way

2.) Tap water contains all kinds of bacteria, toxic chemicals such as chlorine which distabilizes our digestion

3.) all produce is covered with pesticides, mostly all farm grown animals are sick and not fit for consumption

4.) We can't even breath without thinking about smog

Using that definition do you still consider the romans and egyptions to be civilized?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm defining 'civilized' in the same way as the OP....

1.) almost impossible to eat one meal knowing that it hasn't been cheminically altered or impaired in some way

2.) Tap water contains all kinds of bacteria, toxic chemicals such as chlorine which distabilizes our digestion

3.) all produce is covered with pesticides, mostly all farm grown animals are sick and not fit for consumption

4.) We can't even breath without thinking about smog

Using that definition do you still consider the romans and egyptions to be civilized?

No ... but maybe this is the wrong criteria to judge an acne prone society

Look at what Egyptian, Romans and Modern Wester Countries have in common that old Vickings and modern Kitavans and Kalahari lack?

It seems like pesticide, smog and chlorine are not strong commun denominators of acne

There are proof that pesticide causes cancer in children and smog may impar lung functions but it seems that acne in itself is more related to the kind of food available

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm defining 'civilized' in the same way as the OP....

1.) almost impossible to eat one meal knowing that it hasn't been cheminically altered or impaired in some way

2.) Tap water contains all kinds of bacteria, toxic chemicals such as chlorine which distabilizes our digestion

3.) all produce is covered with pesticides, mostly all farm grown animals are sick and not fit for consumption

4.) We can't even breath without thinking about smog

Using that definition do you still consider the romans and egyptions to be civilized?

No ... but maybe this is the wrong criteria to judge an acne prone society

Look at what Egyptian, Romans and Modern Wester Countries have in common that old Vickings and modern Kitavans and Kalahari lack?

It seems like pesticide, smog and chlorine are not strong commun denominators of acne

There are proof that pesticide causes cancer in children and smog may impar lung functions but it seems that acne in itself is more related to the kind of food available

That's my point exactly, it matters what we eat (and toxins affect food food quality)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes

×