Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Unfortunately this event has been postponed, but we're hoping to set a new date so if anyone is interested please reply and I'll post any updates!
  2. Just to let everybody know there is a meet up confirmed for 9th August 2008, for blushers, flushers, rosaceas, indeed everyone welcome! It's an informal do in a quiet bar in Birmingham. I went for the first time last year and had a great time, there was only 4 of us but we had a good chat and a few drinks and it was a very nice evening. Everyone understands our problem so please don't feel worried about blushing in front of anyone, that's what we're here for!! Exact details are to be confirmed but expect to meet around 8pm ish in the Broad Street area of Birmingham where most of the nightlife is. I think last year we met at the Rep Theatre which was nice and quiet so we could talk. No set finishing time but probably around 11pm ish but if you have to go earlier that's perfectly fine. I can understand anyone being nervous about meeting up, as I was last year, but I had a really nice time and everyone was was very friendly. Please post here or PM me if you want more information. If anyone needs accomodation the nearest hotels are Novotel and Jurys Inn. However if they are a too pricy there is Etap, Travelodge and Ibis hotels within walking distance although I've no idea how safe it is to walk as I'm not from Birmingham but I'm sure a taxi wouldn't be too expensive. Hope to see you soon!
  3. You probably don't remember me, but I have read a lot of your posts when you were growing up and I'm really pleased you seem to be doing great and you're a very good looking young lady now!! All the best.
  4. Capri

    London Meet

    I haven't been on here for ages, I'm gussing it didn't happen but I don't know. There maybe another being organised by Liz in Birmingham this August, watch this space!
  5. Yep the Pulse Dye is very dramatic in bruise setting! For anyone who has been recommended it or is considering it you must be prepared for at least 10 days down time.... and sometimes upto 3 weeks depending on how fast it clears up. The first time I had it done it was about 7 days, but the second time I had it done it was 3 weeks! Unless you are very brave you will not want anyone to see you because it is purple. However I believe it has the best chance of success in very stubborn cases. You either have to be able to apply camoflauge make-up, or do what I did and stay indoors.
  6. I have permanent redness and blushing but flushing is the most difficult part of it. However I've had two sessions of "Pulse Dye" laser treatment which have definately helped. They have not been a miracle cure but have given me much relief which is great! I'm having some IPL follow up and maybe a Nd:Yag. It's important to find a practitioner that has lots of expierence in treating this because it's although many advertise it unless they have had good results in this area I would be cautious. I have been to see Dr Peter Crouch at the Burghley Park clinic in Swindon and can't recommend him highly enough.
  7. Assuming serious Research and Development has been done on this product the fact DM is retiring should not prevent the product coming out. DM will have been head of his department and will have secured funding from Chanel to develop this product. They won't see all their money wasted because he has retired. Someone with DM's responsibility is unlikely to have taken a snap decision to retire, there will have been months of preperation for his successer to take over. This quite possibly will be someone from within his team who has worked on this product. If not there will be other senior staff who have worked on it who will be assisting the new man or women. I suppose there is a danger that this product was DM's baby and work will longer proceed, but I think that is highly unlikely. If the product had a chance of coming to market it will not be dropped. If however they found for whatever reason it wasn't going to work then DM's retirement is unlikely to have been the deciding factor, although possible could be the final nail in the coffin.
  8. Capri

    London Meet

    Hey Liz hope you're well! Yeah Feb should be good for me, pobably only free 2 weekends though, will check which when I get my roster this week.
  9. Yep I surely do, wouldn't do anything else now, it's great! I not sure whether or not your Dad would fancy it if he has retired - the training is very intensive. There is a 10 week residential course followed by on the job training. This can vary from 2 months for the easiest signalboxes to around 12 months + for somewhere like New Street. I reckon that place would be a wee bit more stressful than my 'box!! Walsall would probably be about 8 months, give or take, I reckon. The training is the hardest part about it, but once that's over and you get confident in the job it's much better. There are also crossing keepers jobs that are much easier to train - 1 month normally with no residential part. If he's looking for a easy job to keep him out of mischief in his retirement that would be perfect - although all jobs are shift work including nights. Not sure how many there are in the West Midlands area but I'm sure there are some. But yeah, if you need more information now or in future I can point your or your Dad in the right direction and help with the questions on the application form and interview. All the best.
  10. I've read all the last post, and you make some valid points. I still don't agree entirely, but maybe I should try and improve my lifestyle - whilst still trying to enjoy normal activities! I was going to reply again, but I realised I was only going to re-hash a lot of what I had already said. Perhaps we should leave it there as a score draw? I appriciate the time and effort you put into your last post, it was very interesting. I work on the railways as a signaller, and really enjoy it. Sounds sad, but it's not because I'm a spotter. I enjoy being my own boss, gives quality time off, easy but interesting work and something a bit different everyday keeps me thinking! In summer(well if we had a summer) I can sit out on the balcony reading the paper. Anyway all the best with your new life! If you ever come back and fancy it just get in touch and I'll help as best I can. They are always wanting people in New St, Walsall and Saltley signalboxes!
  11. Hmmm, it depends. Do I expect science to allow me to eat McDs every night, get bladdered every night and do no excersise? No, of course not. Would I like medical science to help me live a normal life without being overly concearned about being red-faced? Yes of course I would. I don't think that is unreasonable. Of course it is but again, most of the poulation don't suffer from flushing so it's not the food per se. Yes your right, other people have different issues. But out of them how many have a significant and unavoidable effect on their daily lives? I would argue not that many. Can we be sure that the same food groups, or the same preservatives, or the same toxins are the culprits? It's entirely possible that different things are affecting different people. Therefore is there any food that is safe for everyone? I don't think it's unreasonable for science to come up with answers that could allow us to enjoy ourselves whilst reducing or mitigating health risks. If there is demand for a product, then there is money to made from it. Cosmetic surgery is a prime example of this. However "responsibility" gives the impression that science is somewhow to blame. That of course, is not the case. I try not to think like that - but I have been there. It's just I don't think any Rosceans can be blamed for trying to enjoy the things other people take for granted - and that are a large part of our culture. To me, it's easier to try and treat my problems than to change the culture that I live in. No, but again, if private commerce develops a solution it's not for us to tell people what they can and can't do - providing it doesn't have a negative affect on others. I don't think anyone believes that by going for a piss up on a Saturday night they are doing their body a favour. But most people accept the risk for the benefit of enjoying themselves. Indeed, as I've said, sometimes the answer is not a cure - they can be different. The answer for me would be to stay indoors in a controlled temperature. But that would not be a cure. I don't think it's unreasonable to to want to go out and enjoy a beer. Or even enjoy a walk on a winters day because the later is worse for me than beer. Yet it's a lot less controversial to say "medical science should try and allow me to take a walk without a rebound flush" compared to "medical science should allow me to have a beer" What, exactly, is the difference though? Both are enjoyable activities yet I'm somehow unreasonable for wanting to have a beer as well as a walk? Possibly, but I suspect your over analyising it somewhat. It's just as likely that we simply have a disorder that is one of them unfortunate things. It doesn't automatically "mean something". Maybe it's because we understand more about nutritian now? It's dangerous to make such comparisions with yesteryear because science wasn't as advanced and our understanding so much more limited. I don't think it's helpful to label all supermarket food as being crap. That is what I really don't agree with. There are bad foods, but I don't believe all food is inherantly crap because it's sold in a supermarket. Yes there is some of that, but I don't think it's unreasonable to desire medical help. Of course that DOES NOT stop you helping yourself until then, or until you get good results from IPL/RLT etc But you'll agree that too many spurious "warnings" about thinks being "linked" is completely counter-productive and is utimately dangerous because as you say, we stop believing even the things that are are true. Also though, I think my point is still valid that we accept compromises and risks in life. I ask myself that all the time, and I give up when my head starts hurting lol. I just don't know. I'm so fortunate and so privileged to have a job that I enjoy, a job that I have never once not wanted to go into work and a job that pays me a very good wage and given me a comftable standard of living. Would I give all that up for a job on minimum wage and working twice as hard? Probably not. But I realise I'm in a very good postion in that I have the disposal cash to treat my Rosacea which many do not. I NEVER forget that. I'm going back down to Dr Crouch next week and very hopeful my encouraging progress can continue. I can't speak highly enough of Dr Crouch. It's so refreshing to meet a Dr who's prime concern is his patients and their health and not the money. I'm really pleased! But you sound like you lived a much harder lifestyle than me - I honestly don't think my lifestlye is particularly bad. Low stress, infrequent drinking, no smoking, drugs etc. If you think the sacrifices(and you might not even call them that) you have made are worth the imprrovements that is all that matters, really. Obviously for us its laying off red wine. But that is quite different from saying that red wine is "bad". Just becuase it's bad for us, doesn't mean others can't enjoy it responsibly. Aye it's a long 'un but I always do them! Means I only have to do a 3 day week which is great! PM me if you fancy a job! Vancancies all over the country! Cheers, have a nice weekend!
  12. Of course it is, but that's not the initial point you raised. I disagree that most people live desperately unhealthy lives. If I can quote from the DM article: For what these "experts" are saying is quite simple: "Life will kill you." Which pretty much somes the whole discussion up. There is no doubt that you will live healthier by "getting back to nature". What I'm saying(and I think you agree to an extent) is that this is a unrealistic aim for most people. Most people don't have the time or inclination. Where we disagree, is in the affect that taking a few shortcuts with general supermarket fodder will create. I'm saying I don't believe it will have a huge, systemic effect on our bodies even over the long term. Whereas the benefits it gives us are enourmous. It gives us time, it saves us money and makes are lives easier, and more enjoyable. I don't know enough about this to make an informed comment, but of course, there is nothing to stop us making improvements to the way food is supplied. You're thinking I'm wrong because you're looking at it from a different angle to me. I'm not saying red wine is the best thing you can drink(though I have heard it has some beneficial effects) but I am saying that the negative effects are for most people are acceptable. The benefits, are of course, increased sociability, and having a good time. Enjoying life sometime involces accepting a certain amount of risk, or negative effects. Enjoying yourself IS good for health! We all have to try and balance the need to reduce the effects of Rosacea with leading a normal life. The two aren't always compatible. I could reduce my Rosacea to negligable levels if I never went out, but ultimately that would not be the right thing to do. It's all about getting the balance right. But we can't go back to that way of life, it's just not practical. I'd like to find some evidence of exactly how much better is was though. Not saying it doesn't exist but no time to look now as off for 12 hour night shift soon. Which is the reason I wondered why you gave that article because it was more about the economics of food productions. Damn right and I don't believe it's true for a minute! I try very much not to let Rosacea get me down and you won't find me moaning very much, if at all anymore! I look at the positives of my life and there are many. Even my Rosacea is under control now to a good extent with a combination of Pulse Dye Laser and Linda Sy skincare products(review to follow later when I'm sure they are working). Indeed, we need to try and get on with life as much as possible. I think he was just highlighting the difference between following all the health guidlines and not, and the difference is very small in real terms. I agree, but it's worth mentioning the benefits that modern farming gives us, as we generally only here about the negatives. That's why I think GM has a role to play in the future. Good on him! Nothing wrong with that at all if you have got the time and facilities. But to balance that out you need to remember all the good things about modern life! There is no way I would go back to "olden days". I would miss my Porsche, foreign holidays, warm comfy home, mobile, and dancing the night away in some cheesy club! Exactly, it MAY explain somethings. Equally it MAY NOT. I'm saying there is no point worrying about something if you don't know. All your doing is making a stab in the dark and you may well just be making your life that little bit more miserable without any benefit! I agree, to a point. But as I've said, we still have to try and lead a relatively normal life which sometimes may involve activities that are bad for Rosacea. Yes, all of the above, but not consumed to excess. I really don't think the occasional kebab, McDs, Pizza is a real problem at all. They are not good, but boy at the right time they aren't half enjoyable! Similar to red wine really, most people are able to tolerate them without suffering to excess. Of course there isn't, but life is always going to create risks and we have to make judgements and balance pros and cons. I think the ill health effects are overplayed. Sorry, this has been a little hasty towards the end, I thought I had enough time before work but I'm rushing a bit now. Damn that modern life...... :wink:
  13. I think your confusing bad diet with bad food. I don't disagree having a bad diet, is er, bad for you. What I don't believe is that all our food is "toxic". Indeed, but I would point to the many millions of people who are able to enjoy red wine normally. The issue is with us, not red wine. Again, most people don't flush like we do. It's like the argument of banning alcohol because some people are alcoholics. It's a specious argument because the vast majority of people aren't alchoholics. If we are eating mass produced rubbish, why is life expectancy rising? You previously stated that heart-desease didn't exist pre-agriculture. Maybe that's because the majority of the population didn't live long enough!! They are also report non-sensical guff such as "he died of a broken heart" . That was largely about the economics of food production and not about heath. I picked up on one bit though: "I would encourage people to search out local grocery markets so we are not dependent on the big supermarkets such as Albertsons and Safeway and Wal-Mart." Yeah that might be good for breaking supermarket's monopolies but bad for the enviroment. So instead of goods being brought by one, efficent HGV we'll have hundreds of of cars scurrying around to different farmers markets.... Sounds more of a left-wing rant to me. This is a more interesting article. Doesn't prove anything whatsoever, but an interesting read and is exactly what I believe: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=491218&in_page_id=1770 Is that just a hunch? Because organic needs far more land than "normal" farming. It also suffers greater crop failure and results are more inconsistant. It's sensible to mitigate any negative effects! I've consitantly said that whilst some foods may not be good for us, they are unlikely to cause long term harm if consumed in moderation. So yeah, enjoy a good kebab after going on the booze but if you can, have a run the next day. Life is boring sticking rigidly to diets, detox, and soft drink ALL the time. You'll forgive me if I don't give you an exhustive list, but essentially one that contains all the major food groups, nothing consumed to excess on a regualar basis and everything bought from supermarkets without paying too much attention to labelling. Preserving food isn't natural, but there is no way we can go back to a time where we are all self-sufficent. Besides, I quite like modern life and happy in the knowledge that if I'm a bit peckish late a night I can jump in the car and be within 5 minutes of a plethora of various take-aways. Flusihing is no big deal, generally. It's only excessive flushing that is an issue. The vast majority of people - 99.9%+? have no issue with flushing. That screams out to me the problem is with us and not the food. So why doesn't everybody suffer from it? If this so called "toxicity" exists most people are coping just fine.
  14. None of that proves anything that you orignially proposed though that food is toxic. All of those issues are predominantly with the person and not the food. If your going to consume fast food to excess then your highly likely to get any one or all of the conditions you mentioned. Shocking revalation huh? Yes there are certain problems with particular socio-economic groups but as the saying goes "you can take a horse to water... etc" so if despite education they still want to eat takeaways every night then so be it. I'm extremely pro-choice. But I would say that there should be a "fat" tax on poor foods to pay for their healthcare. What evidence is there that an average diet containing some fast-food, some alcohol, some caffine, some diary, some processed foods etc is causing the problems you claim? I very much doubt it is as bad as you claim. I've read conflicting reports about whether organic food actually is any healthier for you. Although we can be fairly condfident it's healthier for the supermarkets bank balance with the mark-ups. That's also ignoring the practicalities of feeding 6 billion people. If we were all the eat organic the rainforests would be destroyed. I firmly believe that GM foods will - and must - play a huge part in our long term future if the population and population growth is to be sustained at this rate. As said, an average diet containing some "guilty pleasures" is unlikely to be the predominant cause of any afflictions that one would not already suffer from whatever the diet.
  15. We are potentially talking at cross purposes here, so if it helps I'll split the issues... Firstly - In respect to your opening gambit of modern life and food being "toxic", I absolutely disagree. I would point to rising life expectancy and any increases in afflcitions put down to better diagnosis. I don't believe that there is a widespread problem with toxic foods. An average diet that inclduings some drinking and fast food is no big deal. Only when taken to excess is it potentially dangerous. Secondly - Only a fool would suggest that living healthy is a bad thing, and therefore living well is bound to have a beneficial effect on Rosacea. The only caveat I would add is that one should not forget "to have a life". Occasionally indulgence is fine and to have fun sometimes means to relax your regime a little. Of course where the balance is is upto the individual. Thirdly - Of course it is worth looking at excluding foods that are bad for Rosacea and see if they improve your condition. If you get a consistant reaction to something, bingo, your onto it. But I would say that the problem is still with US, and not the food per se. If you have to manage your life to the nth degree that is NOT a cure. Though of course if it gives you relief then it's certainly not for me to say don't do it! Rosacea is very unique and if something works for you then stick with it. But research and should still focus on why we - a minority of the population - are affected. Hope that clears up a few things?
  • Create New...