Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
jamie freedman

Should i bite the bullet (pictures)

Recommended Posts

right, as some may know, i started a course of accutane earlier this year but only carried it out for 25 days because i got worried about possible side effects i might suffer if i continued. Ive been off it for over a month now and my face has gotten back to where it was before...s**t.

Do you people think i should just bite the bullet and do an entire course? Hair loss and permanent joint problems are what im most afraid of. Im soon to be 19(1month), is this too young to know whether its because of puberty?...so fed up

post-124650-1298130877_thumb.jpg

post-124650-1298130886_thumb.jpg

post-124650-1298130877_thumb.jpg

post-124650-1298130886_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should go on accutane. Hair loss and permanent joint problems are very rare.. If anything you may lose tiny strands of hair - and be a little sore - but only for the first month (this is still rare). I'm 17 and been on it 4 months... my only mistake is not going on it earlier like 13-14. Doing a course for 25 days is a waste of time... you really need to do the full 4-5 months to see real results. You probably already know this but the real side affects are chapped lips, dry skin, flushed skin.

Ultimately its your decision, for me accutane was the last hope i was giving up on everything and everyone. If you feel remotely close to the same way i say go on it as soon as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your acne isn't even severe. All I see is small pimples. Not even of the cystic variety.

I agree. Benzoyl Peroxide and/or retinoids will probably do the trick. No need for the heavy stuff when you have mild acne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your acne isn't even severe. All I see is small pimples. Not even of the cystic variety.

I agree. Benzoyl Peroxide and/or retinoids will probably do the trick. No need for the heavy stuff when you have mild acne.

Believe it or not, the severity of acne is not the only thing that derms consider when considering prescribing Accutane. I recognise that you guys have been spoon fed to believe that Accutane is only for severe acne (because it is such a "dangerous" drug), but it is simply not the case. Among other things, derms also consider how much psychological scarring the patient has from thier acne and whether other treatments (topicals, antibiotics) have been effective in the short- or long-term. Thus, a mild acne patient with severe psychological scarring and/or who failed other treatments can (justifiably) get Accutane.

OP: You have a perfect window of time before college to get clear from Accutane, so I suggest you do the full course, certainly if other treatments have failed you. Whatever you do, if you decide to do a full course of an anti-acne drug, make sure it is Accutane and not a useless antibiotic.

Edited by jimmy188

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you should go on accutane. Hair loss and permanent joint problems are very rare.. If anything you may lose tiny strands of hair - and be a little sore - but only for the first month (this is still rare). I'm 17 and been on it 4 months... my only mistake is not going on it earlier like 13-14. Doing a course for 25 days is a waste of time... you really need to do the full 4-5 months to see real results. You probably already know this but the real side affects are chapped lips, dry skin, flushed skin.

Ultimately its your decision, for me accutane was the last hope i was giving up on everything and everyone. If you feel remotely close to the same way i say go on it as soon as possible.

How many tall people who used Accutane in their young teens have you seen?

I can't get deep into it everytime it's brought up, but it's not the miracle cure. It IS the last resort, and one of the only resorts for cystic acne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you should go on accutane. Hair loss and permanent joint problems are very rare.. If anything you may lose tiny strands of hair - and be a little sore - but only for the first month (this is still rare). I'm 17 and been on it 4 months... my only mistake is not going on it earlier like 13-14. Doing a course for 25 days is a waste of time... you really need to do the full 4-5 months to see real results. You probably already know this but the real side affects are chapped lips, dry skin, flushed skin.

Ultimately its your decision, for me accutane was the last hope i was giving up on everything and everyone. If you feel remotely close to the same way i say go on it as soon as possible.

How many tall people who used Accutane in their young teens have you seen?

I can't get deep into it everytime it's brought up, but it's not the miracle cure. It IS the last resort, and one of the only resorts for cystic acne.

Such claims based on "personal observations" are one part attention-grabbing and one part dramatic, but ultimately prove nothing unless corroborated by definitive scientific evidence, of which there is none.

Edited by jimmy188

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Such claims based on "personal observations" are one part attention-grabbing and one part dramatic, but ultimately prove nothing unless corroborated by scientific evidence, of which there is none.

From various sources... Google to find where I got them. Most are from PubMed and government sites. Oh, and do I even need to mention that there's a hell of a lot more evidence? This is 5 minutes of lazy research.

(I know you want to believe that Accutane is a lovely wonder-drug, and people are always more likely to believe what they want to believe, because you can rationalize anything, but it's just simply ignorant.)

In FDA's medication guide for Accutane it says "Accutane may stop long bone growth in teenagers who are still growing."

(If you know anything about how powerful lobbies and interest groups are in the FDA, you'd understand how much that warning means)

Vitamin A deficiency and excess both cause abnormalities in mammalian longitudinal bone growth. Because all-trans retinoic acid (RA) is synthesized from vitamin A, we hypothesized that RA regulates growth plate chondrogenesis. Consistent with this hypothesis, a single oral dose of RA reduced the height of the rat proximal tibial growth plate. To determine whether RA acts directly on growth plate, fetal rat metatarsal bones were cultured in the presence of RA. In this system, RA inhibited longitudinal bone growth by three mechanisms: 1) decreased chondrocyte proliferation, (assessed by 3H-thymidine incorporation), particularly in the proliferative zone of the growth plate; 2) decreased matrix synthesis (assessed by 35SO4 incorporation into glycosaminoglycans); and 3) decreased cell hypertrophy (determined histologically). The growth-inhibiting effects of RA were completely reversed by a retinoic acid receptor (RAR) antagonist. In the absence of exogenous RA, this antagonist accelerated bone growth, as did an RA-specific neutralizing antibody, suggesting that endogenous RA negatively regulates growth plate chondrogenesis. We conclude that RA, acting through RARs, negatively regulates longitudinal bone growth by inhibiting growth plate chondrocyte proliferation, chondrocyte hypertrophy, and matrix synthesis.

Accutane may affect bones, muscles, and ligaments and cause pain in your joints or muscles. Tell your prescriber if you plan vigorous physical activity during treatment with Accutane. Tell your prescriber if you develop pain, particularly back pain or joint pain. There are reports that some patients have had stunted growth after taking Accutane for acne as directed. There are also some reports of broken bones or reduced healing of broken bones after taking Accutane for acne as directed. No one knows if taking Accutane for acne will affect your bones. If you have a broken bone, tell your provider that you are taking Accutane. Muscle weakness with or without pain can be a sign of serious muscle damage. If this happens, stop taking Accutane and call your prescriber right away.

Milstone, LM; McGuire, J; Ablow, RC (1982). "Premature epiphyseal closure in a child receiving oral 13-cis-retinoic acid". Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 7 (5): 663“6. doi:10.1016/S0190-9622(82)70148-3. PMID 6958690.

Steele, RG; Lugg, P; Richardson, M (1999). "Premature epiphyseal closure secondary to single-course vitamin A therapy". The Australian and New Zealand journal of surgery 69 (11): 825“7. PMID 10553976.

Standeven, AM; Davies, PJ; Chandraratna, RA; Mader, DR; Johnson, AT; Thomazy, VA (1996). "Retinoid-induced epiphyseal plate closure in guinea pigs". Fundamental and applied toxicology 34 (1): 91“8. doi:10.1006/faat.1996.0179. PMID 8937896.

Török, L; Galuska, L; Kása, M; Kádár, L (1989). "Bone-scintigraphic examinations in patients treated with retinoids: a prospective study". The British journal of dermatology 120 (1): 31“6. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.1989.tb07762.x. PMID 2534736.

David, M; Hodak, E; Lowe, NJ (1988). "Adverse effects of retinoids". Medical toxicology and adverse drug experience 3 (4): 273“88. PMID 3054426.

Digiovanna, JJ (2001). "Isotretinoin effects on bone". Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 45 (5): S176“82. doi:10.1067/mjd.2001.113721. PMID 11606950.

Montag, M; Reiser, M; Hamm, H; Traupe, H; Vogt, HJ (1988). "Skeletal changes following long-term treatment with retinoids". Der Radiologe 28 (7): 320“5. PMID 3045876.

Orfanos, CE (1989). "Retinoids: the new status. Maintenance therapy, disorders of resorption in "non-responders", interactions and interferences with drugs, treatment of children and bone toxicity, acitetin and 13-cis-acitretin". Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete 40 (3): 123“9. PMID 2523875.

I also somehow recall Accutane's growth stunting effects being referenced and fussed over by the PR of the companies.

Edited by treefase93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your acne isn't even severe. All I see is small pimples. Not even of the cystic variety.

I agree. Benzoyl Peroxide and/or retinoids will probably do the trick. No need for the heavy stuff when you have mild acne.

Believe it or not, the severity of acne is not the only thing that derms consider when considering prescribing Accutane. I recognise that you guys have been spoon fed to believe that Accutane is only for severe acne (because it is such a "dangerous" drug), but it is simply not the case. Among other things, derms also consider how much psychological scarring the patient has from thier acne and whether other treatments (topicals, antibiotics) have been effective in the short- or long-term.

OP: You have a perfect window of time before college to get clear from Accutane, so I suggest you do the full course, certainly if other treatments have failed you. Whatever you do, if you decide to do a full course of an anti-acne drug, make sure it is Accutane and not a useless antibiotic.

Obviously if other methods of treatment weren't successful, accutane is the last resort. But his acne is certainly no where near cystic acne. He has mild acne, but a fair amount of it. Due to his age he is certain to outgrow his blemishes. The risks far outweigh the benefits. His acne is so mild, and accutane is too rash in his case to treat it. I would highly doubt any qualified dermatologist would prescribe it, and if they did I would slap them. The OP does NOT have severe acne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Such claims based on "personal observations" are one part attention-grabbing and one part dramatic, but ultimately prove nothing unless corroborated by scientific evidence, of which there is none.

From various sources... Google to find where I got them. Most are from PubMed and government sites. Oh, and do I even need to mention that there's a hell of a lot more evidence? This is 5 minutes of lazy research.

(I know you want to believe that Accutane is a lovely wonder-drug, and people are always more likely to believe what they want to believe, because you can rationalize anything, but it's just simply ignorant.)

In FDA's medication guide for Accutane it says "Accutane may stop long bone growth in teenagers who are still growing."

(If you know anything about how powerful lobbies and interest groups are in the FDA, you'd understand how much that warning means)

Vitamin A deficiency and excess both cause abnormalities in mammalian longitudinal bone growth. Because all-trans retinoic acid (RA) is synthesized from vitamin A, we hypothesized that RA regulates growth plate chondrogenesis. Consistent with this hypothesis, a single oral dose of RA reduced the height of the rat proximal tibial growth plate. To determine whether RA acts directly on growth plate, fetal rat metatarsal bones were cultured in the presence of RA. In this system, RA inhibited longitudinal bone growth by three mechanisms: 1) decreased chondrocyte proliferation, (assessed by 3H-thymidine incorporation), particularly in the proliferative zone of the growth plate; 2) decreased matrix synthesis (assessed by 35SO4 incorporation into glycosaminoglycans); and 3) decreased cell hypertrophy (determined histologically). The growth-inhibiting effects of RA were completely reversed by a retinoic acid receptor (RAR) antagonist. In the absence of exogenous RA, this antagonist accelerated bone growth, as did an RA-specific neutralizing antibody, suggesting that endogenous RA negatively regulates growth plate chondrogenesis. We conclude that RA, acting through RARs, negatively regulates longitudinal bone growth by inhibiting growth plate chondrocyte proliferation, chondrocyte hypertrophy, and matrix synthesis.

Accutane may affect bones, muscles, and ligaments and cause pain in your joints or muscles. Tell your prescriber if you plan vigorous physical activity during treatment with Accutane. Tell your prescriber if you develop pain, particularly back pain or joint pain. There are reports that some patients have had stunted growth after taking Accutane for acne as directed. There are also some reports of broken bones or reduced healing of broken bones after taking Accutane for acne as directed. No one knows if taking Accutane for acne will affect your bones. If you have a broken bone, tell your provider that you are taking Accutane. Muscle weakness with or without pain can be a sign of serious muscle damage. If this happens, stop taking Accutane and call your prescriber right away.

Milstone, LM; McGuire, J; Ablow, RC (1982). "Premature epiphyseal closure in a child receiving oral 13-cis-retinoic acid". Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 7 (5): 663œ6. doi:10.1016/S0190-9622(82)70148-3. PMID 6958690.

Steele, RG; Lugg, P; Richardson, M (1999). "Premature epiphyseal closure secondary to single-course vitamin A therapy". The Australian and New Zealand journal of surgery 69 (11): 825œ7. PMID 10553976.

Standeven, AM; Davies, PJ; Chandraratna, RA; Mader, DR; Johnson, AT; Thomazy, VA (1996). "Retinoid-induced epiphyseal plate closure in guinea pigs". Fundamental and applied toxicology 34 (1): 91œ8. doi:10.1006/faat.1996.0179. PMID 8937896.

Török, L; Galuska, L; Kása, M; Kádár, L (1989). "Bone-scintigraphic examinations in patients treated with retinoids: a prospective study". The British journal of dermatology 120 (1): 31œ6. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.1989.tb07762.x. PMID 2534736.

David, M; Hodak, E; Lowe, NJ (1988). "Adverse effects of retinoids". Medical toxicology and adverse drug experience 3 (4): 273œ88. PMID 3054426.

Digiovanna, JJ (2001). "Isotretinoin effects on bone". Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 45 (5): S176œ82. doi:10.1067/mjd.2001.113721. PMID 11606950.

Montag, M; Reiser, M; Hamm, H; Traupe, H; Vogt, HJ (1988). "Skeletal changes following long-term treatment with retinoids". Der Radiologe 28 (7): 320œ5. PMID 3045876.

Orfanos, CE (1989). "Retinoids: the new status. Maintenance therapy, disorders of resorption in "non-responders", interactions and interferences with drugs, treatment of children and bone toxicity, acitetin and 13-cis-acitretin". Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete 40 (3): 123œ9. PMID 2523875.

I also somehow recall Accutane's growth stunting effects being referenced and fussed over by the PR of the companies.

Likewise, you can rationalise all you want about Accutane just because you don't want to risk taking it because of its "bad" effects.

That evidence you provided is all well and good, but the fact of the matter is that if there was definitive proof that Accutane stunts growth beyond doubt then it would never be prescribed to teenagers at all. If we only consider legal reasons, why would drug companies knowingly allow teenagers to take a drug that stunts growth? They would be sued into oblivion even if allowed to do it in the first place, which they wouldn't. I know you want to believe everything you read, but FDA/drug companies put all conceivable warnings on drug labels for legal purposes and to cover their bases, even if there is only anecdotal evidence leading them to include a particular warning in the first place. Notice "no one knows if taking Accutane for acne will affect your bones" and how the FDA's medication guide for Accutane says "Accutane may stop long bone growth in teenagers who are still growing"? If we knew beyond doubt that Accutane stunts growth, teenagers would never be prescribed it in the first place.

I concede that even though there is not yet any definitive evidence that Accutane stunts growth this does mean that it doesn't. However, Accutane has been around for nearly 30 years, more than enough time for researchers to demonstrate any important link between Accutane use and "stunted growth".

Edited by jimmy188

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likewise, you can rationalise all you want about Accutane just because you don't want to risk taking it because of its "bad" effects.

That evidence you provided is all well and good, but the fact of the matter is that if there was definitive proof that Accutane stunts growth beyond doubt then it would never be prescribed to teengers at all. If only for legal reasons, why would drug companies knowingly allow teenagers to take a drug that stunts growth? They would be sued into oblivion if even allowed to do it in the first place. FDA/drug companies put all conceivable warnings on drug labels for legal purposes and to cover their bases, even if there is only anecdotal evidence leading them to include a particular warning in the first place. Notice "no one knows if taking Accutane for acne will affect your bones" and how the FDA's medication guide for Accutane says "Accutane maystop long bone growth in teenagers who are still growing"? If it without question DID stunt growth, teenagers would never be prescribed it in the first place.

I concede that even though there is not yet any definite evidence that Accutane stunts growth this does mean that it doesn't. However, Accutane has been around for nearly 30 years, more than enough time for researchers to find any link between Accutane use and growth.

The fact of the matter is that it's a personal decision whether or not people choose to get the prescription, not something they ought to be pressured (in a sensationalistic manner) into doing, so they may as well be informed with all the statistical evidence and anecdotal evidence available rather than be misled by one person's hopeful sentiments. Concerning merely one possible side effect, we know retinoic acid stunts bone development, we just don't know what amount will ensure its adversity (people vary) and to what extent.

As for the FDA putting labels on things like cigarettes and alcohol... That stuff takes TONS of hours and manpower to get done. People like Nader devoted their entire lives to running squadrons of people devoted to merely warning people about dangers that were extremely well-documented, like congenital defects from alcohol and lung cancer from cigarettes (yet there were always insistent people like you who probably led to millions of cases of fetal alcohol syndrome and tar-blackened lungs). With something like Accutane, a drug which treats a very severe aesthetic condition for a select few individuals, doesn't it... MEAN something that the FDA would actually state that it may stunt/stop bone growth? So OF COURSE they're not going to pull Accutane from the market because it's likely it can desynthesize bone development. They're not going to pull it from the market because it can cause liver and joint problems either.

I don't even know all the details of Accutane's lobbies or interest groups, and don't have the time to figure it out. You might want to if you want to call BS, quite literally WITHOUT evidence, on the issue though.

...or would you like me to find more information? Seriously, that was 5 minutes of research. Let's see what you come up with in the next 24 hours, because you can speak your mind all you want. Opposing viewpoints are required to formulate a good, reasonable decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, let me remind you of what Accutane was put on the market for in the first place.

FDA approved Accutane in 1982 for use in treatment of severe, recalcitrant nodular acne that is unresponsive to conventional therapy, including antibiotics. In most cases, cystic acne is disfiguring and painful, causing red cysts and deep nodules that can leave deep scars. Accutane is uniquely effective in treating patients with this disease, and in many cases is curative after a single 4 to 5 month treatment course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likewise, you can rationalise all you want about Accutane just because you don't want to risk taking it because of its "bad" effects.

That evidence you provided is all well and good, but the fact of the matter is that if there was definitive proof that Accutane stunts growth beyond doubt then it would never be prescribed to teengers at all. If only for legal reasons, why would drug companies knowingly allow teenagers to take a drug that stunts growth? They would be sued into oblivion if even allowed to do it in the first place. FDA/drug companies put all conceivable warnings on drug labels for legal purposes and to cover their bases, even if there is only anecdotal evidence leading them to include a particular warning in the first place. Notice "no one knows if taking Accutane for acne will affect your bones" and how the FDA's medication guide for Accutane says "Accutane maystop long bone growth in teenagers who are still growing"? If it without question DID stunt growth, teenagers would never be prescribed it in the first place.

I concede that even though there is not yet any definite evidence that Accutane stunts growth this does mean that it doesn't. However, Accutane has been around for nearly 30 years, more than enough time for researchers to find any link between Accutane use and growth.

The fact of the matter is that it's a personal decision whether or not people choose to get the prescription, not something they ought to be pressured (in a sensationalistic manner) into doing, so they may as well be informed with all the statistical evidence and anecdotal evidence available rather than be misled by one person's hopeful sentiments. Concerning merely one possible side effect, we know retinoic acid stunts bone development, we just don't know what amount will ensure its adversity (people vary) and to what extent.

As for the FDA putting labels on things like cigarettes and alcohol... That stuff takes TONS of hours and manpower to get done. People like Nader devoted their entire lives to running squadrons of people devoted to merely warning people about dangers that were extremely well-documented, like congenital defects from alcohol and lung cancer from cigarettes (yet there were always insistent people like you who probably led to millions of cases of fetal alcohol syndrome and tar-blackened lungs). With something like Accutane, a drug which treats a very severe aesthetic condition for a select few individuals, doesn't it... MEAN something that the FDA would actually state that it may stunt/stop bone growth? So OF COURSE they're not going to pull Accutane from the market because it's likely it can desynthesize bone development. They're not going to pull it from the market because it can cause liver and joint problems either.

I don't even know all the details of Accutane's lobbies or interest groups, and don't have the time to figure it out. You might want to if you want to call BS, quite literally WITHOUT evidence, on the issue though.

...or would you like me to find more information? Seriously, that was 5 minutes of research. Let's see what you come up with in the next 24 hours, because you can speak your mind all you want. Opposing viewpoints are required to formulate a good, reasonable decision.

You can find more "information" and "evidence" if you wish, but the very fact that Accutane is still available to teenagers means that the present "evidence" that Accutane stunts growth is not convincing enough, even collectively, to the FDA. Make no mistake, if Accutane did indeed stunt growth and this was proven, the FDA would not/no longer make it available to teenagers, because this would be a very serious side effect, which, unfortunately for your argument, does not appear to exist.

Edited by jimmy188

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can find more "information" and "evidence" if you wish, but the very fact that Accutane is still available to teenagers means that the present "evidence" that Accutane stunts growth is not convincing enough, even collectively, to the FDA. Make no mistake, if Accutane did indeed stunt growth and this was proven, the FDA would not/no longer make it available to teenagers, because this would be a very serious side effect, which, unfortunately for your argument, does not appear to exist.

I've made my point, and so has the FDA. Clearly, there was enough evidence and pressure on the FDA concerning this specific issue that it was worth warning people about.

Side effects, by the way, vary from person to person. Your last sentence isn't exactly too comprehensive. It could happen to anyone, and there's plentiful anecdotal evidence from users on this very forum as well as evidence from every single person I've personally ever known to have taken Accutane, not to mention evidence cited by the FDA and multiple studies, as well as factual evidence concerning the drug itself and the way the drug works. And that evidence MUST be taken into account and presented in order to encourage caution and education about a very powerful and generally unhealthy drug. I've seen your other posts on Accutane; you consistently encourage the opposite take on Accutane, an approach which even the most apathetic and ignorant of doctors wouldn't take. It takes someone like me to balance you out, and I've had several regretful post-Accutane users thank me for saying what I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can find more "information" and "evidence" if you wish, but the very fact that Accutane is still available to teenagers means that the present "evidence" that Accutane stunts growth is not convincing enough, even collectively, to the FDA. Make no mistake, if Accutane did indeed stunt growth and this was proven, the FDA would not/no longer make it available to teenagers, because this would be a very serious side effect, which, unfortunately for your argument, does not appear to exist.

I've made my point, and so has the FDA. Clearly, there was enough evidence and pressure on the FDA concerning this specific issue that it was worth warning people about.

Side effects, by the way, vary from person to person. Your last sentence isn't exactly too comprehensive. It could happen to anyone, and there's plentiful anecdotal evidence from users on this very forum as well as evidence from every single person I've personally ever known to have taken Accutane, not to mention evidence cited by the FDA and multiple studies, as well as factual evidence concerning the drug itself and the way the drug works. And that evidence MUST be taken into account and presented in order to encourage caution and education about a very powerful and generally unhealthy drug. I've seen your other posts on Accutane; you consistently encourage the opposite take on Accutane, an approach which even the most apathetic and ignorant of doctors wouldn't take. It takes someone like me to balance you out, and I've had several regretful post-Accutane users thank me for saying what I say.

I love it when people resort to attacking other peoples' grammar/spelling/comprehension, thus revealing that their own "argument" has run out of steam.

I agree that it is a personal decision whether someone should take Accutane, but that decision should not be have to be made in the context of preachings by those who eagerly gobble up Accutane scare campaigns as if they are gospel.

Edited by jimmy188

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made my point, and so has the FDA. Clearly, there was enough evidence and pressure on the FDA concerning this specific issue that it was worth warning people about.

Side effects, by the way, vary from person to person. Your last sentence isn't exactly too comprehensive. It could happen to anyone, and there's plentiful anecdotal evidence from users on this very forum as well as evidence from every single person I've personally ever known to have taken Accutane, not to mention evidence cited by the FDA and multiple studies, as well as factual evidence concerning the drug itself and the way the drug works. And that evidence MUST be taken into account and presented in order to encourage caution and education about a very powerful and generally unhealthy drug. I've seen your other posts on Accutane; you consistently encourage the opposite take on Accutane, an approach which even the most apathetic and ignorant of doctors wouldn't take. It takes someone like me to balance you out, and I've had several regretful post-Accutane users thank me for saying what I say.

I love it when people resort to attacking other peoples' grammar/spelling/comprehension, thus revealing that their own "argument" has run out of steam.

I agree that it is a personal decision whether someone decides to take Accutane, but that decision should not be contingent on the preachings of those who gobble up Accutane scare campaigns as if they are gospel.

I'm not familiar with any Accutane scare campaigns. I'll have to look more into that.

If I'm sounding too preachy, I apologize. I was hoping citing evidence and reason would help me make my point. I didn't even know I was preaching.

...And when did I attack your grammar/spelling/comprehension(?)?

Edit: Ahh, I know what you're talking about with the "comprehension" thing. The funny thing is, now I'm actually forced to make fun of your ability to comprehend: "comprehensive" in the context I used it in has no relation to your ability to "comprehend". It has to do with the amount and depth of relevant information you incorporated into your statement.

com-pre-hen-sive

–adjective

1.

of large scope; covering or involving much; inclusive: a comprehensive study of world affairs.

Had to say that. Another ironic detail: you attempted to accuse me of ad hominem attacks, when you were, in fact, the one using ad hominem attacks.

Edited by treefase93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made my point, and so has the FDA. Clearly, there was enough evidence and pressure on the FDA concerning this specific issue that it was worth warning people about.

Side effects, by the way, vary from person to person. Your last sentence isn't exactly too comprehensive. It could happen to anyone, and there's plentiful anecdotal evidence from users on this very forum as well as evidence from every single person I've personally ever known to have taken Accutane, not to mention evidence cited by the FDA and multiple studies, as well as factual evidence concerning the drug itself and the way the drug works. And that evidence MUST be taken into account and presented in order to encourage caution and education about a very powerful and generally unhealthy drug. I've seen your other posts on Accutane; you consistently encourage the opposite take on Accutane, an approach which even the most apathetic and ignorant of doctors wouldn't take. It takes someone like me to balance you out, and I've had several regretful post-Accutane users thank me for saying what I say.

I love it when people resort to attacking other peoples' grammar/spelling/comprehension, thus revealing that their own "argument" has run out of steam.

I agree that it is a personal decision whether someone decides to take Accutane, but that decision should not be contingent on the preachings of those who gobble up Accutane scare campaigns as if they are gospel.

I'm not familiar with any Accutane scare campaigns. I'll have to look more into that.

If I'm sounding too preachy, I apologize. I was hoping citing evidence and reason would help me make my point. I didn't even know I was preaching.

...And when did I attack your grammar/spelling/comprehension(?)?

Edit: Ahh, I know what you're talking about with the "comprehension" thing. The funny thing is, now I'm actually forced to make fun of your ability to comprehend: "comprehensive" in the context I used it in has no relation to your ability to "comprehend". It has to do with the amount and depth of relevant information you incorporated into your statement.

com-pre-hen-sive

“adjective

1.

of large scope; covering or involving much; inclusive: a comprehensive study of world affairs.

Had to say that. Another ironic detail: you attempted to accuse me of ad hominem attacks, when you were, in fact, the one using ad hominem attacks.

Haha, oh you decided to edit out the (semantic) dramatic vs attention-grabbing comment you made before anyone could see it. Cheeky bugger! I wonder why you did that :think:. Don't worry, I didn't miss it ;).

Edited by jimmy188

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you should go on accutane. Hair loss and permanent joint problems are very rare.. If anything you may lose tiny strands of hair - and be a little sore - but only for the first month (this is still rare). I'm 17 and been on it 4 months... my only mistake is not going on it earlier like 13-14. Doing a course for 25 days is a waste of time... you really need to do the full 4-5 months to see real results. You probably already know this but the real side affects are chapped lips, dry skin, flushed skin.

Ultimately its your decision, for me accutane was the last hope i was giving up on everything and everyone. If you feel remotely close to the same way i say go on it as soon as possible.

LOL, are you serious is that a nude picture as your profile pic. WTF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for your replies guys, first off... i know my acne is not sever, however it is not mild demona, it is persistant moderate acne. mild acne does not leave scars. Also as i stated a dermatologist has already deemed my skin worthy of accutane and its simply whether i want to take the risk. I am not using benzoyl peroxide again as i believe it cause scarring and hyper pigmentation and am scared about retinoids because of initial breakout that is not always guaranteed to subside with time.

As for phycological stress, i think jimmy is right that if it effects an individual enough then accutane should be an option even if it isn't severe, after all acne is simply an aesthetical misfortune with no health effects apart from ones self esteem. I have suffered a lot from acne...had to quit bodybuilding due to testosterone levels and diet aggravating my face which was a huge part of my life that i competed at a high level in, and not to mention a passion.

Im just really confused on what to do...i want this ordeal to be over and have been given a way out, but then again i dont want to be left with life long ailments.

please keep leaving your opinions guys, they're much appreciated(stop the petty arguing tho lol) x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your acne isn't even that bad. Please try differin. My acne was similar and differin helped when I tried it 4 or 5 years ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think i will try a retinoid, and just hope i dont get a massive IB. the only thing is you said it helped you 4/5 years ago and your still on this site and taking/applying/dieting for your acne. Accutane is often a permanent cure.

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

×