Worst pimple EVER

neumein · Post by **neumein** » Sun May 24, 2009 7:15 am

I have a pimple on the entrance to my right nostril. It is the most painful thing I have experienced recently. I absent-mindedly scratched my nose earlier and nearly cried, it is that bad. Pimple on the face, no biggie. Body pimples, meh, clothes are there for a reason. Even those annoying ear-zits are easier to deal with than this thing. But a nose pimple?! I'm sorry, but that is a line that should not be crossed.

Random, I know, but it's driving me nuts.

LodeHacker · Post by **LodeHacker** » Sun May 24, 2009 9:24 am

Yah if you see my face you'll be like WTF U R FUGLY.

BUT STILL! I'm a PERSON and have a PERSONALITY and I am back in the game (new girlfriend, YEAH).

So if someone looks at me then I'll be like "SO WHAT R U LOOKIN AT MONKEY ASS?" and if it gets physical I try my best not to fail and should I fail then I don't cry but lie down there with PRIDE.

This is LIFE dude.
P.S. pics available on request.

Matija · Post by **Matija** » Sun May 24, 2009 9:55 am

Nose pimple? That's nothing.

I once had a pimple below my belly button. I thought I had swallowed a needle and/or that my stomach ruptured. Nothing was visible at first, but the pain was almost unbearable until the damn thing matured a couple of days later.

nutball · Post by **nutball** » Sun May 24, 2009 10:32 am

Google for "perineum". Pimples there == bad.

LodeHacker · Post by **LodeHacker** » Sun May 24, 2009 11:57 am

nutball wrote:Google for "perineum". Pimples there == bad.

I know it isn't funny, BUT can it be possible that something awful from the past made you use that username? xD

nutball · Post by **nutball** » Sun May 24, 2009 12:40 pm

LodeHacker wrote:I know it isn't funny, BUT can it be possible that something awful from the past made you use that username? xD

No, I always use my real name on forums

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Mon May 25, 2009 10:33 am

Had one right in the middle of my chest that was so huge and hung around for so long that I seriously began to think I was sprouting a third nipple.

Interesting fact: the nose is bar none THE most painful place to have a hair removed from. So much so that if you're ever slacking off of work for the day, a couple of hairs hastily pulled from your nose right before you phone your boss is guaranteed to make your "woe is me" performance utterly believable, as your eyes will be streaming and your nose will be full of snot.

What a charming thread

Matija · Post by **Matija** » Mon May 25, 2009 11:20 am

If you need to sneeze, yeah, pull some hairs out of your nose. Guaranteed to work. Used that trick a long time ago, when evading school

yefi · Post by **yefi** » Mon May 25, 2009 11:52 am

Pimples are strongly correlated to GDP.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Mon May 25, 2009 8:08 pm

When I was loaded down early in life, I had them both on my face and my back. They were large, red, sore, and sensitive. People would just pat me on the back in friendship and the pain was unbelievable.

People don't know this but they have a lot to do with eating habits. Everyone with bad acne should make a list of the top 20 things they eat. They should stop eating each one on the list for 2 weeks to see what happens, until they hit the problem food.

As a teenager I used to drink like a quart of orange juice a day. Bad move for me, way too much acid for my system to handle.

yefi · Post by **yefi** » Tue May 26, 2009 2:23 pm

aristide1 wrote:People don't know this but they have a lot to do with eating habits.

A lot of "health professionals" (triple quotations needed) say that diet doesn't affect acne. They are wrong, and it does.

I said pimples are correlated to GDP, because in less industrializsed countries it's hardly known. That means its prevalence in the Western World must be down to environmental factors. One obvious thing teenagers in these more impoverished countries do not do is eat fries or other processed nonsense, which is today the mainstay of our diet. When teenagers are fed the diet of their poorer cousin, there are dramatic improvements in their skin.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Tue May 26, 2009 6:29 pm

Yes. Also if memory serves me correctly insomnia also does not occur in undeveloped countries.

I found out about the food issues accidently, when I went on a working trip and starting taking megadosage of vitamins. It was one of the worst breakouts I ever had. Pain from back zits just lying in bed.

Ch0z3n · Post by **Ch0z3n** » Tue May 26, 2009 8:16 pm

LodeHacker wrote: BUT STILL! I'm a PERSON and have a PERSONALITY and I am back in the game (new girlfriend, YEAH).

Haha, the DDR chick?

I've had some pretty awful pimples too. The worst part was they didn't start till about senior year of HS. About the only thing that I have found is washing my face every day makes them a little smaller and keeps them from being puss-filled and they don't hurt as much.

People in underdeveloped countries also tend to be outside more and don't tend to do things that shoves oils into the skin (e.g. talking on a cell phone). [shrug] who the hell knows, I just want them to go away.

judge56988 · Post by **judge56988** » Wed May 27, 2009 5:03 am

yefi wrote:
aristide1 wrote:People don't know this but they have a lot to do with eating habits.
A lot of "health professionals" (triple quotations needed) say that diet doesn't affect acne. They are wrong, and it does.
I said pimples are correlated to GDP, because in less industrializsed countries it's hardly known. That means its prevalence in the Western World must be down to environmental factors. One obvious thing teenagers in these more impoverished countries do not do is eat fries or other processed nonsense, which is today the mainstay of our diet. When teenagers are fed the diet of their poorer cousin, there are dramatic improvements in their skin.

No, you're wrong. There is no evidence that this is the case. How can you justify saying that the medical profession is wrong? Do you have evidence? Research results?

I had acne as a teenager and I hated it - no girlfriend until I was 17 - although I did try and make up for that later when the spots cleared up.

My diet was healthy with fresh vegetables from my dad's allotment and very few sweets. Junk food hadn't been invented then - at least not where I lived.
Out of my class of 40 there were 3 or 4 with acne, a few with flawless skin and most with a few pimples - we all used to eat the same school dinners and I doubt there was much difference in what people ate at home.
Acne is caused by an over production of sebum in the sebaceous glands in the skin. Some people are prone to this naturally, it is also caused by hormonal imbalances during adolescence and by use of anabolic steroids; which is why some bodybuilders suffer from acne.

Regarding the thing about under developed countries - again, where's your evidence? I've been to plenty and I've seen kids and even adults with really bad acne.

On a brighter note, when you get older, the naturally greasy skin of those prone to acne delays the appearance of lines and wrinkles. People are always surprised when they learn my age, generally underestimating it by 5 - 10 years.

yefi · Post by **yefi** » Wed May 27, 2009 9:08 am

judge56988 wrote:No, you're wrong. There is no evidence that this is the case. How can you justify saying that the medical profession is wrong? Do you have evidence? Research results?

The scientific methodology is great. You can go to pubmed etc and find lots of useful studies. However, if you know anything about the health profression, you'll know that they don't go reading pubmed that often. Just hearing nonsense like fat=bad or monosaturated=bad or eggs=cholestorel=bad* reveals that.

Here's an article on an interesting study about acne: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/h ... cne13.html

*Experiments showed eating an egg a day has no effect on cholestorel, while actually reducing LDL and increasing HDL iirc.

I had acne as a teenager and I hated it - no girlfriend until I was 17 - although I did try and make up for that later when the spots cleared up.
My diet was healthy with fresh vegetables from my dad's allotment and very few sweets. Junk food hadn't been invented then - at least not where I lived.
Out of my class of 40 there were 3 or 4 with acne, a few with flawless skin and most with a few pimples - we all used to eat the same school dinners and I doubt there was much difference in what people ate at home.

Just because you ate vegetables as a kid and got acne doesn't mean diet has no effect; just because some in your class ate school dinners and had perfect skin doesn't meant diet has no effect and just because you saw the zittiest kid you ever knew from a developing country doesn't mean that diet has no effect. These are all examples of inductive or flawed reasoning.

yefi · Post by **yefi** » Wed May 27, 2009 9:15 am

Ch0z3n wrote:People in underdeveloped countries also tend to be outside more

Yes, we really don't get much sun exposure. I mean, I have pale skin as an evolutionary adaptation just so I can absorb more sunlight at higher latitudes, and here I am covering myself in clothes.

To be sure, we get cereals and milk fortified with vitamin D, but it's debatable if you're getting the same thing.

judge56988 · Post by **judge56988** » Wed May 27, 2009 10:11 am

yefi wrote:
Here's an article on an interesting study about acne: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/h ... cne13.html

I've just read that - not very conclusive is it, given that it contains the following:

But Johnson also thinks it's too soon to conclusively link acne to diet. Dermatologists have long believed that acne depends on many factors, including heredity, hormonal changes and use of greasy cosmetics or creams.

What about this or this or this

Are you willing to dismiss the prevailing medical opinion on the basis of reading one inconclusive study?

I'll accept that bad diet can aggravate pre-existing acne, as can several other things, but in itself it is not a cause. Believe me, I tried everything to get rid of mine when I was a teenager. The only things that helped a bit were sunshine and seawater. Lucky for me I lived near the beach.

yefi wrote: Just because you ate vegetables as a kid and got acne doesn't mean diet has no effect; just because some in your class ate school dinners and had perfect skin doesn't meant diet has no effect and just because you saw the zittiest kid you ever knew from a developing country doesn't mean that diet has no effect. These are all examples of inductive or flawed reasoning.

Those examples I gave are obviously not scientific proof of anything, merely personal observations that do not support your theory.
Your reasoning is... where?

Sorry, but if the best you can do is point me to a study which the authors themselves admit is inconclusive, you won't convince me.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Wed May 27, 2009 10:54 am

Acne is caused by an over production of sebum in the sebaceous glands in the skin.

My skin is still oily in places, though not as bad as before. I eat far fewer lipids that solidify at room temperature and have fewer zits. But people with very dry skin may not have this problem.

A summer at the beach left my skin brown, tight, and dry. I had fewer zits, but the ones I had were more painful, as they had problems getting to the surface and breaking out. Is this TMI?

Either way neither argument gets to make a blanket statement. Food is the cause, or food is not the cause, because the words "always" and "never" are implied. Such statements are dis-information, and yes, there are many in and out of the medical establishment that make such claims.

There are many urban legends about zits. One was it was caused by germs. But the back is the second most frequent place to get them and is considered a very clean area of the body.

yefi · Post by **yefi** » Wed May 27, 2009 6:25 pm

Sorry, but if the best you can do is point me to a study which the authors themselves admit is inconclusive, you won't convince me.

The experiment wasn't inconclusive. An inconclusive experiment would have results that neither could nor could not link diet. You are confusing the opinions of the scientist with the results of the experiment. That more research should be done in this field is certainly true though.

Now I could be wrong for sure. But, I'd need to see a controlled study where they took an unbiased group and fed one half the diet of the less-industrialised country and one half the diet of the more-industrialised and for there to be no statistically significant change in acne. You got that study at hand?

As for what BUPA, NHS etc thinks, Goethe has a quote involving a part of his body where the sun rarely visits.

KansaKilla · Post by **KansaKilla** » Wed May 27, 2009 10:37 pm

I can spell dokter, an' I are one.

I use literature searches every day in deciding what the right treatment for a patient will be, so the comment that medical professionals do not use pubmed or the like isn't exactly accurate.

The problem lies in separating out "what is truth" and the way the medical and scientific communites do this is based on creating studies. The problem is separating out the quality studies out from those of lesser quality. Depending on your point of view, the highest level of accuracy is done either by a randomized controlled clinical trial (a.k.a. Phase III) or a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Phase three trials seek to eliminate as many factors as possible from the question being asked. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma is a prime example of this. If I wanted to find out if the addition of chemotherapy to radiation would improve survival, then I would treat one group of patients with the standard treatment (radiation alone) and the experimental group with the experimental treatment (radiation plus chemotherapy) and see what the outcome is. People are not widgets, though, so you have to stratify the treatment groups by the inherent differences from the "standard patient" so that on the whole they even out in the two groups and you minimize their influence on what you are trying to study. (I won't get into the ethical issues here). This was done in the 90's and reported in a prominent medical journal, showing an improved survival for those patients receiving chemo and radiation. Some people said "Aha! We need to treat NPC with combination therapy!" when the p-value (probability that what you got wasn't just a random result) was less than an accepted value (1/20 chance of this result being different from "truth"). Problem is that you can have two identically designed studies achieve different numbers/outcomes and arrive at different conclusions, and not everyone is going to accept one study at face value. So additional studies were done to see if the result could be replicated and it pretty much was. So now, if you have NPC, you generally get chemo and radiation and this is the recommendation that I make for my patients. This is an example of a good question with a good answer, but one that used lots of resources (time, money, patients, etc.).

Lower down on the truth ladder is the prospective observational study (not really testing anything, just seeing how a treatment or intervention affects the subject, and maybe comparing it to historical controls), followed by the retrospective study (how did those patients treated at our institution for problem X fare when we look back over the records?). Even lower down is the "in my experience" report, which is kinda like a limited retrospective study. The further down the ladder you go, the easier the study is to do and fund with time/money/whatever, but the less likely it is to show what the truth really is.

In an ideal world, we would have phase three trials for everything. The reality of limited budgets limits that. So for those questions that are deemed of lesser importance there are few or no quality studies guiding us. Or, if there isn't a vested interest in answering a question, no one is going to want to take a hard look at it. Prostate cancer is a great example. There has never been a trial comparing prostatectomy to radiation therapy directly in a phase three fashion. Tons of retrospective and prospective trials though. Urologists debate with radiation oncologists what the best treatment is, but no one is going to make a trial seeking to answer this because 1) if one is better than the other then there goes a substantial portion of the specialty's livelihood, and 2) what patient would want to be randomized to one of two treatments with very different side effect profiles/quality of life outcomes/cost? So we have a lot of weak studies that seek to increase our knowledge on the matter and don't really answer the question. When I counsel a patient of his treatment options, I go over the data and let the patient decide for himself. The urologist looks at the same data and reaches a different conclusion.

The best way to test if diet influences acne outbreaks is to randomize two groups of people, after stratifying for all the other factors (sex, age, pubertal status, smoking, etc.), into one group with a standard diet and one group with a low or high fat diet and see what the degree of acne is. That might be done, but I doubt that you would ever see a large enough allocation of resources done. So we are left with a myriad of other less-quality studies to guide us. My job is to wade through that crap and distill it down into recommendations that patient can act on. The dermatologist next door might see the same stuff in a different light and recommend something totally different even thoughwe are both trying to apply the science as best we can.

In the end, I just tell my patients with zits to stop masturbating so much. They might go blind, too.

yefi · Post by **yefi** » Thu May 28, 2009 7:42 pm

KansaKilla wrote: Depending on your point of view, the highest level of accuracy is done either by a randomized controlled clinical trial (a.k.a. Phase III) or a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Phase three trials seek to eliminate as many factors as possible from the question being asked.

You can't isolate all of the variables and see all the interactions at their causative level. You have to work at the level of humans in clinical trials, which is imperfect. Humans are complex organisms and what may be a treatment for one may be wasteful on another.

Also clinical trials don't prove causality I think. Rather, they point to it. I mean you're finding a with b and in the absence of a there is no b. But that doesn't mean a causes b. c might occur alongside a and c might cause b.

I use literature searches every day in deciding what the right treatment for a patient will be, so the comment that medical professionals do not use pubmed or the like isn't exactly accurate.

I'm sorry, by health professionals I wasn't explicit enough. I was meaning dietitians, nutritionists etc. This is just an observation I have made based on the amount of lousy advice I've heard parroted.

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Fri May 29, 2009 11:33 am

KansaKilla wrote:In the end, I just tell my patients with zits to stop masturbating so much.

You'd never make it in a bawdy 1970's hospital...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqv6TTSQfYw

judge56988 · Post by **judge56988** » Fri May 29, 2009 11:50 am

yefi wrote: As for what BUPA, NHS etc thinks, Goethe has a quote involving a part of his body where the sun rarely visits.

yefi wrote: I'm sorry, by health professionals I wasn't explicit enough. I was meaning dietitians, nutritionists etc.

I reckon the first thing you said was explicit. Or did you just change your tune when you got pulled up by a proper doctor? Hopefully any dietitians or nutritionists reading that will not take too much offense at that slur on their training and professionalism.

And then you go on to say:

yefi wrote: This is just an observation I have made based on the amount of lousy advice I've heard parroted.

Yet when I made observations based on personal experience your response was:

yefi wrote: These are all examples of inductive or flawed reasoning.

Make your mind up mate.

(Edit - typo)

LodeHacker · Post by **LodeHacker** » Fri May 29, 2009 1:32 pm

yefi fail.

yefi · Post by **yefi** » Fri May 29, 2009 4:20 pm

judge56988 wrote:I reckon the first thing you said was explicit. Or did you just change your tune when you got pulled up by a proper doctor? Hopefully any dietitians or nutritionists reading that will not take too much offense at that slur on their training and professionalism.

That no doctor would use pubmed is bizarre and not what I meant. No database would exist if that were the case. Also, it is not all dieticians, nutritionists etc. However, there is *a lot* of unsound advice which contradicts modern findings.

And my position on NHS/BUPA's advice still stands. To argue that they are right merely because of their profession--which is what it appears you are doing--is an Argument from Authority and saying that I'm slurring their immaculately good name is not about to change my stance.

Yet when I made observations based on personal experience your response was:

yefi wrote: These are all examples of inductive or flawed reasoning.
Make your mind up mate.

We all make observations from our personal lives. However, your observations were particularly sucky.

"School dinners don't cause acne because some children eating school dinners didn't have acne. School dinners are not vegetables, therefore diet doesn't affect acne." But you didn't see what effect not eating school dinners would have had on the persons who did have acne. Nor does eating or abstaining from school dinners test diet, in so much as it may be the presence of something outside it in the diet that affects acne.

Or "I saw a kid in, say, Zagreb who had terrible acne. He ate differently, therefore diet doesn't affect acne." How many people crossed before your optical nerve in whichever country you visited? Do you think you might have had a bias for spotting the ones with acne? Did you compare the numbers relative to a country with higher GDP? Do a handful of exceptions contradict the hypothesis?

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Sat May 30, 2009 6:41 am

yefi wrote:To argue that they are right merely because of their profession--which is what it appears you are doing--is an Argument from Authority

And God help all of us from the number of people who routinely accept that without any forethought or consideration of ulterior motives. Doesn't this describe a large portion of the voting public?

And as of late there are also those who think they are infallable simply because they have obtained authority. In reality it's a variation of Michael Jackson and his dream land, with equal difficulty for the masses to find the egress.

By the way you hand out upper case letters too easily.

judge56988 · Post by **judge56988** » Sat May 30, 2009 11:51 am

aristide1 wrote:
yefi wrote:To argue that they are right merely because of their profession--which is what it appears you are doing--is an Argument from Authority
And God help all of us from the number of people who routinely accept that without any forethought or consideration of ulterior motives. Doesn't this describe a large portion of the voting public?

Actually there are a few people who accept the opinion of well educated, well trained specialists after having considered alternative possibilities and the fact that some "professionals" might indeed have ulterior motives and are in fact selling snake oil - like this dietary acne cure. (Only $197 for a book and a DVD)

But seriously, where else do you go for advice on matters medical/legal/financial/building/mechanical/etc. etc.? Your mate in the pub?

But yes, you're right; sadly a lot of the public must be dumb, else there wouldn't be so many scams out there. (Or is that flawed reasoning Yefi?)

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Sat May 30, 2009 2:17 pm

judge56988 wrote:Actually there are a few people who accept the opinion of well educated, well trained specialists after having considered alternative possibilities

I totally agree because you said a few. Some would be OK. For most people thinking seems to be too much work.

and the fact that some "professionals" might indeed have ulterior motives and are in fact selling snake oil - like....

Snake oil can also be just propoganda.

But seriously, where else do you go for advice on matters medical/legal/financial/building/mechanical/etc. etc.? Your mate in the pub?

The mate may not be the most educated, but on not so rare occasions the only one who's not billing you may be the most objective. A good professional gives all the positives and negatives, then lets you decide fully informed. That of course eliminates your friendly stock broker as a professional, doesn't it?

But yes, you're right; sadly a lot of the public must be dumb, else there wouldn't be so many scams out there. (Or is that flawed reasoning Yefi?)

There will never be a shortage of people who want to get something for nothing. Only experience reduces their numbers, too bad its not instinct.

Matija · Post by **Matija** » Sat May 30, 2009 2:33 pm

Only on SPCR can a harmless topic about a pimple become a flamewar.

cloneman · Post by **cloneman** » Sun May 31, 2009 12:06 am

FYI, Proactiv doesn't really work - at least no better than other over the counter crap.

Stievamycin gel is the only thing that has only every worked for me (along with special soaps and oral antibiotics).

Accutane is the strong shit that I've tried to steer away from

Stievamycin rly is the best cream/gel you can get though, afaik. A suggestion, don't attempt to pop pimples unless they are really, really, asking for it.