Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
u4ria

My new theory on acne paints a grim picture

Recommended Posts

As a person who has been living with acne for 11 years and a longtime supporter of natural medicine and healing through diet/holistic means to cure oneself of ailments, i think now acne can only be controlled by these means and not cured. Same for mainstream medicine. I now think acne is genetic but not how you might think it is, not at the fault of your parents but mankind as a whole for allowing itself to over pollute our daily lives. My new theory is that acne is caused by dna/cell damage from heavy exsposure to free radicals/carcinogens and radiation exsposure from various sources. We have strayed to far from what mother nature originally intended for us.

Don't think your being exsposed? if your buying just about anything from a grocery store you sure are. In 1963 the fda approved these foods for irradiation. (yes they take the liberty of nuking your food for you before you buy it)

1. fresh foods-delay's maturation kills insects

2.poultry/red meat and pork-controls spoilige and microorganisms

3 water

And a whole array of other products and foods,stuff like plastic bottles and papper towels,i don't care how safe they say irradiation is, nature did not intend us to eat food augmented by radiation. Sunlight should be the only radiation coming close to our fresh produce.

other possible sources of dna/cell damage

smoking

benzine from cars

all carcinogenic chemicals in general

microwaved foods (why not just add to the food irradiation,lol)

x-ray's from dentist/doctors

electromagnetic radiation from your favorite radio station going through your body 24/7

food preservatives

the computer your sitting at now?i know some older generations of screens were know for eye damage becouse of the radiation they cranked out.

Maybe it's like when you make a tape copy that's a copy of a copy, by copy 5 or so the quality is deteriorated. That could be how it is for humans and dna damage, the longer humans live under these unnatural conditions being exsposed to all these harmful things the worse the dna damage/mutations wich means future generations could have acne even worse. My derm has told me several times there changing how they look at acne, he said it was changing and that more adults have it and young people getting it even younger. I have "googled" acne to death and cannot find any serious medical jargon on acne past 1958 (the use of chemicals in foods became heavy after wwII) maybe someone else has had better luck?

This theory would pretty much mean the only way to cure acne is by bringing our damaged dna back to it's original natural state, wich is just not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This theory would pretty much mean the only way to cure acne is by bringing our damaged dna back to it's original natural state, wich is just not possible.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head there. A lot of our ailments could POSSIBLY be linked to modern living; it's the price you pay for modern convenience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a hypothesis, not a theory. Exactly how do you plan to test it? Even if we have exposed ourselves to increased levels of mutagens since the dawn of the industrial age and even moreso now in the nuclear age, mutation in and of itself is not a bad thing evolutionarily speaking. There is no reason whatsoever that mutations causing people to be more prone to acne would prevail in the gene pool, either, unless acne conferred some survival or reproductive advantage on its sufferers. As we know, it does not.

Actually, what do you even mean by "damaged" DNA? What you seem to be referring to with the "copy of a copy of a copy" thing is telomeres being chopped off gradually each time a DNA strand is replicated, which is partially what causes us to die when we age. Are you suggesting that chemicals added to foods have caused this natural degradation to speed up? Why would this even matter? There is certainly no link between replication errors and acne, otherwise older people would see a higher incidence, whereas the exact opposite is true.

By the way, irradiated food is not radioactive and will not cause any changes to your DNA. You actually can test this one yourself. Go buy a geiger counter and use it to measure the radioactivity of your food. Then go up to a living cow or a piece of fruit still on the tree. There will not be any difference. Your food will only become radioactive if it is contaminated with radioactive materials, not from being passed through a gamma-ray field.

Now if you get passed through that field, it'll hurt you, which is the whole idea. It also hurts bacteria, fungi, and other food-born pathogens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a hypothesis, not a theory. Exactly how do you plan to test it? Even if we have exposed ourselves to increased levels of mutagens since the dawn of the industrial age and even moreso now in the nuclear age, mutation in and of itself is not a bad thing evolutionarily speaking. There is no reason whatsoever that mutations causing people to be more prone to acne would prevail in the gene pool, either, unless acne conferred some survival or reproductive advantage on its sufferers. As we know, it does not.

Actually, what do you even mean by "damaged" DNA? What you seem to be referring to with the "copy of a copy of a copy" thing is telomeres being chopped off gradually each time a DNA strand is replicated, which is partially what causes us to die when we age. Are you suggesting that chemicals added to foods have caused this natural degradation to speed up? Why would this even matter? There is certainly no link between replication errors and acne, otherwise older people would see a higher incidence, whereas the exact opposite is true.

By the way, irradiated food is not radioactive and will not cause any changes to your DNA. You actually can test this one yourself. Go buy a geiger counter and use it to measure the radioactivity of your food. Then go up to a living cow or a piece of fruit still on the tree. There will not be any difference. Your food will only become radioactive if it is contaminated with radioactive materials, not from being passed through a gamma-ray field.

Now if you get passed through that field, it'll hurt you, which is the whole idea. It also hurts bacteria, fungi, and other food-born pathogens.

Your right evolution/mutation is not allway's a bad thing when it happens naturally, but i see it as a problem when you bring it upon yourself by means of dna damaging chemicals and radiation from whatever unnatural source over a period of less than 200 years wich is a very short ammount of time evolutionary speaking.

irradiated foods my not have any detectable radiation, but the food matter itself has been augmented from it's natural state.there has been studies on irradiated foods and found it to be a potent source of carcinogens.You can also test this yourself,go buy 2 healthy plants from the store and feed one with regular tap water and the other with microwaved water after it has cooled and watch the one given microwaved water everyday wither away and die.

damaged dna can happen upon exsposure to various chemicals and radiation and causes dna to become altered and cause cell replication in a way that's not right, wich is what cancer is (augmented cells not properly replicated and attack healthy cells) more than half the % of control rod opperators in nuclear power plants die of cancer (cancer is a whole other topic though). And acne is another way of damaged dna manifest itself i think. You can learn about dna damaging chemicals through the courses they give people learning to paint cars for a living and they teach you about the different chems you'll be exsposed to, i got out of that profession fast as i could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

irradiated foods my not have any detectable radiation, but the food matter itself has been augmented from it's natural state.there has been studies on irradiated foods and found it to be a potent source of carcinogens.You can also test this yourself,go buy 2 healthy plants from the store and feed one with regular tap water and the other with microwaved water after it has cooled and watch the one given microwaved water everyday wither away and die.

Given that irradiated foods are approved by the FDA, WHO, and pretty much every developed country in the world, I'm not exactly inclined to take your word on that. Also, microwaves are not used in irradiation. The effects of irradiation are not as strong as the effects of cooking. Boil that water, and you'd change it even more than you would by microwaving it. Both will change it far, far more than passing it briefly through a gamma-ray field.

Nonetheless, carcinogens don't necessarily cause mutations that will get passed on to the next generation. You can live in the sun without sunscreen or smoke 18 packs a day, but it doesn't mean your kids will have skin or lung cancer. For your hypothesis to have any creedence, the human genome itself would need to change. This goes well beyond replication errors due to mutagen exposure, which are not passed on. Moreover, for the human genome itself to change, every person exposed to these carcinogens would need to experience exactly the same mutation from it (200 years is not long enough for a single mutation to proliferate through an entire population without the contribution of a serious bottlenecking event, which has not occured), which simply isn't possible. Unless you are suggesting that a huge variety of different mutations will all aggravate acne. But if that's the case, why would it happen now and not before? There are just too many logistical difficulties with this that I don't think you're considering.

damaged dna can happen upon exsposure to various chemicals and radiation and causes dna to become altered and cause cell replication in a way that's not right, wich is what cancer is (augmented cells not properly replicated and attack healthy cells) more than half the % of control rod opperators in nuclear power plants die of cancer (cancer is a whole other topic though). And acne is another way of damaged dna manifest itself i think.

Why? Why do you think that?

It makes sense that cancer can be caused by replication errors. Mutations can occur that result in cells no longer requiring growth factors to replicate, or any other number of things that can cause them to replicate out of control. There are something like 7 or 8 mutations necessary for most kinds of cancer to develop, and if you're born with 5 or 6 of them, then there is a pretty good chance you'll go down. There is a theoretical basis for this, and it has been confirmed to occur in laboratory studies. On the other hand, you aren't giving any theoretical basis. You're just insisting that replication errors can result in acne. How? Even without the theoretical basis, what evidence is there to suggest this? Is there any evidence whatsoever linking higher rates of point mutations or telomere degradation to any form of skin lesion at all? Skin cancer is the only thing I can think of, and acne certainly isn't a form of cancer. Plus, these things are progressive. Replication errors build up over the course of a lifetime. If they were to cause acne, then acne would be more common the older you get, whereas what we see in reality is the exact opposite.

You see, the problem I'm having here isn't that I think this little idea of yours is completely impossible. Maybe there are certain replication errors that can cause us to stop producing certain enzymes in our skin or to overproduce others and this makes us susceptible to acne. I don't know. What I do know is that a replication error in your skin doesn't get passed on to the next generation, nullifying the idea that irreversible change has been done to the human genome that has resulted in acne. People are not born more prone to acne because of what their parents ate. If your gametes are exposed to mutagens, then sure, that can cause a mutation that is passed on. The thing then is that you have the problem from the early stages of development, meaning you'll never develop correctly in the first place. If you're lucky (or perhaps unlucky, depending on how you look at it) enough to even be born, you'll have serious birth defects. Acne is not the result of a birth defect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chlorophyllin: a potent antimutagen against environmental and dietary complex mixtures.

Ong TM, Whong WZ, Stewart J, Brockman HE.

Chlorophyllin, the sodium and copper salt of chlorophyll, was tested for its ability to inhibit the mutagenic activity of a variety of complex mixtures--extracts of fried beef, fried shredded pork, red grape juice, red wine, cigarette smoke, tobacco snuff, chewing tobacco, airborne particles, coal dust and diesel emission particles--in strain TA98 of Salmonella typhimurium. Chlorophyllin was highly effective against the mutagenicity (90-100% inhibition) of 8 of these 10 mixtures. The mutagenicity of the other 2 mixtures was inhibited 75-80% at the highest concentration of chlorophyllin studied. Control and reconstruction experiments showed that chlorophyllin was not toxic to Salmonella at the concentrations used. The antimutagenic activity of chlorophyllin was heat-stable. The mechanism of the antimutagenicity of chlorophyllin in these experiments is not known; however, chlorophyllin is an antioxidant. Scavenging of radicals and/or interaction with the active group of mutagenic compounds may be responsible for its antimutagenic activity. The data reported here indicate that chlorophyllin is potentially useful as an antimutagenic agent.

PMID: 3511367 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplement with liquid chlorophyll. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you understand what this guy is saying. He's claiming that past exposure to mutagens in the last 200 hundred years have done irrevocable harm to the human genome in such a way that we are all more prone to acne. Even if chlorophyllin protects against mutagens, it isn't going to undo mutations that you were born with. Nothing short of gene therapy could do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you understand what this guy is saying. He's claiming that past exposure to mutagens in the last 200 hundred years have done irrevocable harm to the human genome in such a way that we are all more prone to acne. Even if chlorophyllin protects against mutagens, it isn't going to undo mutations that you were born with. Nothing short of gene therapy could do that.

I'm willing to be very flexable here. It may indeed not be dna damage that's past down from generation to generation, it just might be how well a person's body can handle the bombardment of dna damaging agent's from the time there born that determines when and if they will get acne. Whatever the method and source may be, i think acne must be linked to some sort of dna damage happening somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this is true !! Look at non-developed places across the world, Tibet, even Africa, who are mal-nourished, yet, no acne. ??? I doubt they have Burger King there, and most people just go outside and work in the yard, farming, all their lives. :) This is a great theory, I think the answer lies not only in your diet, but in your ENVIRONMENT. Myself, being very sensitive to pollution, I can almost feel "bad air" making my skin greasy sometimes. It's like when a car drives by you, you can feel it.

The hardest part would be to find out why some people react differently to ENVIRONMENTAL attacks. On one hand, you can say "their immune system is better" or the other, you can say "people that have acne, actively show that their bodies are working hard to stay healthy" .. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we just accept that whatever is bad for your health will also increase your chances of getting acne. What ever bad stuff (pollution, chemicals, what not) goes in, must be dealt by your liver or kidneys. And those organs get too busy then you are going to have trouble, acne being one possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how you can say that anything bad for your health is going to increase your chances of getting acne. There are plenty of people out there that intentionally poison their bodies for recreational purposes. Is there any evidence of a higher incidence of acne in alcoholics? Smokers? Drug addicts? Coal miners? Anorexics? East Asian peasants with no access to clean water?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let me put it this way. There are many ways a bad state of health could manifest. One of them being acne. Another examples could be weight gain, liver problems, bad breath, hair loss, constipation, other skin problems and what not.

Acne is primarly caused because your liver can't cope up with all the work that it needs to do. Whatever is bad for your health is most likely going to affect your liver also. Because your liver does need to deal with most of the poisons you put into your body (be it smoking, unhealthy food, chemicals, bacteria from contaminated drinking water, air pollution, etc).

Yes, I made a sweeping statement, but the point is that overworked liver could manifest in X number of ways. Acne is one of the possibilities.

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

×