Jump to content
  • Corporate Membership is open to the public and rosaceans are welcome

    rrdi_rules.png

    1. RRDi members must be polite and respectful to fellow members taking into consideration the individual fellow member's religious, ethical, and cultural values, as well as age, race and sex. The institute determines what is polite and respectful and may or may not give warnings for violating this rule. Removal from the membership is possible for violating this rule. It is a privilege to be a member of the RRDi and not a right.

    2. To be a legal corporate voting member a name, mailing address, two email addresses, and a statement of whether the member is a rosacean or not a rosacean is required. Non voting members are only required to provide a valid email address. 

    3. Members may not profit from the institute; however, any Medical Advisory Consultants (or Committee) member or any other member may be compensated for services rendered to the institute.

    4. Members who sell items or services for rosacea may comment on a treatment, product, book or service sold by the member when another member asks for information. However, the institute may at any time stop the discussion, delete the posts or ban the member at the sole discretion of the institute. Warnings may or may not be given to the member by the institute. Profiting from contacts of fellow members through the institute is not the purpose of this non profit institute. However, information is acceptable to post when asked and appropriate comments are allowed subject to the approval by the institute. The RRDi determines if the post is appropriate or not and you agree to this decision.

    5. Voting members should state if they have a diagnosis of rosacea from a physician and failure to discuss this may be grounds for dismissal as a member. The institute needs to know which voting members are rosaceans to determine the percentage of voting members who have a diagnosis of rosacea from a physician and which voting members are not rosacea sufferers. Non voting members are also required to state if they have a diagnosis of rosacea if another member inquires.  

    6. Privacy is of concern to the institute. Names, mailing and email addresses are not given out to the public or to fellow members by the institute. Your public profile is available to anyone to view but only shows your location, country, and whether you are a rosacean if you put data into these public profile boxes. Your personal profile like first and last name, etc., is never shown to the public and only RRDi staff members can view your personal profile. You agree to allow your public profile to be shown. Members should not release names, mailing or email addresses of fellow members if you are aware of the personal contact information of a fellow member without the consent of the fellow member. A Privacy Policy is available for the public. Members who donate to the institute will be listed with their name and the amount unless the donor requests anonymity. If you want to remain anonymous please let the institute know when you donate otherwise your name will be posted without any address, phone, or email address.

    7. Members will adhere, agree to and obey the Charter, Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws, the Conflict of Interest Policy and these Rules of the Institute. Violation of any of these rules may be grounds for being removed as a corporate voting member or non voting member. You may view these documents by request or check the site index.

    8. A 'rosacean' is a rosacea sufferer. 'Institute' refers to the RRDi. RRDi refers to the Rosacea Research & Development Institute. You accept these terms.

    9. Anyone can join as a non voting member and post in the forum without providing any contact information other than a valid email address. 

       10.  The Rules of the Institute may be changed at any time at the sole discretion of the institute. 

     

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 5 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      1,223
    • Most Online
      499

    Newest Member
    Beth
    Joined
  • Posts

    • Skin Pharmacol Physiol 2007;20:199–210  DOI:  10.1159/000101807  
      Beneficial Long-Term Effects of Combined Oral/Topical Antioxidant Treatment with the Carotenoids Lutein and Zeaxanthin on Human Skin: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study  
      P.  Palombo,  G. Fabrizi,  V. Ruocco, E. Ruocco, J. Fluhr, R. Roberts, P.  Morganti 
    • From 1998 through 2005 there was an incredible volunteer spirit that drove the formation of the RRDi. Since 2005 the force that motivated so many to bring together rosacea sufferers into a non profit organization has dwindled to just a flickering wick. Why is it that rosaceans (rosacea sufferers) don't volunteer anymore?  Andy Seth, an entrepreneur, has a blog post, The Way We Think About Volunteering Is Dead Wrong, states, "research shows that the happiest volunteers are those who give 2 hours per week. That’s it. 2 hours."   If the RRDi could get any rosacean to volunteer 2 hours a weeks, that would be miraculous. Are there volunteers who actually volunteer that many hours a week? There must be, otherwise the study is bogus. If we could get any RRDi member to just post their thought or experience with rosacea for 15 minutes a week that would be incredible. We have dotted the RRDi forum with requests to RRDi members to simply post anything and the 1200 plus members as of this date are simply miniscule when it comes to posting. Getting our members to post is a challenge. If you have some insight how to get our members to post, we are all ears. You can reply to this post and comment to your heart's content. Of course, that is the issue, the RRDi members' hearts are not content to post. Why is that? The research Mr. Seth referred to may have been the study commented on by the American Psychological Association that reports, "Volunteers lived longer than people who didn't volunteer if they reported altruistic values or a desire for social connections as the main reasons for wanting to volunteer, according to the study." This same study, Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis, the co-author concludes:  "It is reasonable for people to volunteer in part because of benefits to the self; however, our research implies that should these benefits to the self become the main motive for volunteering, they may not see those benefits."  One of the benefits is what is called 'helper's high' which has been scientifically confirmed. [1] Of course, if a RRDi member who has rosacea helps another rosacea sufferer that would be the basis for receiving the 'helper's high.' Rosaceans supporting rosaceans.  In trying to understand why volunteering amongst rosaceans has continued on this downward course, and googling this for an answer, The Guardian has an article about this subject and concluded, "But while the benefits of volunteering are clear, there is worrying evidence that the people who could benefit most from giving their time are precisely those least likely to be involved."  Volunteer Match (which the RRDi has joined) has an article on this subject and states that the Bureau of Labor Statistics Report shows "that volunteer rates have been steadily declining for over a decade," [2] and comments, "There’s an endless supply of reasons that could explain why volunteer rates are falling. Last year, upon seeing the results, VolunteerMatch President Greg Baldwin argued that volunteer rates are falling because we as a nation don’t invest enough resources in the nonprofit sector. Without resources, nonprofits simply don’t have the capacity to effectively engage volunteers. Someone in the comments of that post argued that the falling rates can be attributed to the fact that more people are overworked with less time on their hands. Others say people are simply lazier than they used to be. I personally think it could be attributed to a shifting trend away from community involvement, due to the emergence of online communities, young people moving more often, and other factors." [3] In the above article mentioned [3] there are a number of comments and I think Ron from Florida's [April 16, 2016] comment is insightful: 
      "When I was younger, volunteering and giving back was part of life. It was something that we did and didn’t think twice about it. I don’t see that same philosophy these days. It’s to the point that schools here require some level of community service to complete your graduation requirements." Stem Learning reports, "It is suggested that stagnating volunteer numbers and in some areas, reducing numbers of volunteers, along with cuts made by local authorities falling disproportionately upon the volunteering sector funding, suggests a potential fall in people volunteering per se. Furthermore the 2015/16 Community Life survey, highlighted 14.2 million people formally volunteered at least once a month in 2014/15 and although rates are mostly unchanged, it appears irregular volunteering appear to show a 5% drop!" Carey Nieuwhof lists 6 REASONS YOU'RE LOSING HIGH CAPACITY VOLUNTEERS. I don't see how those six reasons are related to the RRDi, but I am all ears to anyone who can point out to me what the RRDi isn't doing or not doing with regard to Carey's six reasons. Our page on volunteering covers most of what Carey is discussing.  Without a doubt this explains the situation. Any thoughts on this subject would be much appreciated.  Online Volunteering Dr. Natalie Hruska says that the studies indicating a drop in volunteering over the past decade "do not factor in kinds of volunteerism today, like virtual volunteering" and writes there is "a necessity to redefine what volunteerism is and how we understand it today." [4] End Notes [1] Helper's High: The Benefits (and Risks) of Altruism, Psychology Today [2] According to the 2015 report, 24.9% of the U.S. population over the age of 16 volunteered at least once in the past year. In 2011, this percentage was 26.8%, and in 2005 it was 28.8%. [3] The U.S. Volunteer Rate Is Still Dropping. Why?, Tess Srebro | March 25, 2016 | Industry Research | Engaging Volunteers, Volunteer Match [4] Dr. Natalie Hruska, April 12, 2016 POST to the article in end note 2. Dr. Hruska has a video below that discusses online volunteering:  Dr. Hruska has written a book on this subject, Managing the First Global Technology: Reflections on a relevant application of the Internet, in Kindle or Paperback. 
    • Dr. Ben Johnson, RRDi MAC Member, discusses a holistic approach to treating rosacea in an interview with Lori Crete, Licensed Esthetician, Spa 10. 
    • I had a mole on my forehead that I was told that 3% Hydrogen Peroxided might remove, so I dabbed a little on the mole and after some weeks it did indeed remove the mole. However, I noticed that the rosacea or seb derm on my forehead that was near the mole also cleared up. So I experimented and began putting 3% Hydrogen Peroxide on my red spots on my forehead and after some days they began to fade away too!  Since then I have been putting 3% Hydrogen Peroxide on all my facial rosacea red spots and letting it dry, then adding the ZZ cream, just before bed and this regimen seems to really work for me. I also have taking the Lutein/Zeazanthin 40 mg capsule each day. I also avoid sugar as much as possible and eat very low carbohydrate. 
    • An interesting article in The New York Times Magazine states, "Enough people reported good results that patients were continually lined up at Mesmer’s door waiting for the next session."  Dr. Mesmer is where the word mesmerize comes from. The article explains how 'double blind' placebo controlled clinical studies originated and why drug companies have to differentiate between a drug's actual pharmaceutical effect and the placebo effect. I particularly like this paragraph in the article: 

      "What if, Hall wonders, a treatment fails to work not because the drug and the individual are biochemically incompatible, but rather because in some people the drug interferes with the placebo response, which if properly used might reduce disease? Or conversely, what if the placebo response is, in people with a different variant, working against drug treatments, which would mean that a change in the psychosocial context could make the drug more effective? Everyone may respond to the clinical setting, but there is no reason to think that the response is always positive. According to Hall’s new way of thinking, the placebo effect is not just some constant to be subtracted from the drug effect but an intrinsic part of a complex interaction among genes, drugs and mind. And if she’s right, then one of the cornerstones of modern medicine — the placebo-controlled clinical trial — is deeply flawed."

      What if the Placebo Effect Isn’t a Trick?, The New York Times Magazine
×