Comments on: RRDi journal Issue 1 Review: an unfortunate mix

By: James L

James L — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 14:04:59 +0000

Thanks for this. I also purchased this and was disappointed. I found a couple of the articles, such as the one about skin care products, to be practical, informative and reasonable. Most of the rest seemed like internet nonsense or advertisements.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:15:00 +0000

David

It’s disappointing but I can’t say I am surprised that this publication appears to be a dud. Maybe people who want to donate towards rosacea research would be better off just sending $15 off the NRS instead?

Brady no doubt has some genuine people on his RRDi but surely by now he can recognise the conmen and quacks, especially when there has been such adverse publicity about them in the past. He was caught out by Syed and then up until fairly recently he was also advertising Nase’s latest product from his website. Given that there is a whole website out there dedicated to warning the public about the infamous Dr Nase and those of us (including Brady) involved in the rosacea forums know his history, then it’s just plain dumb for Brady to be caught out promoting his products.

You only have to read the profile of Mr Christiansen to realise he falls in the same category as Syed and Nase, so why risk damaging your own reputation by allowing an obvious quack to be involved in your organisation?

Regarding your statement:
The Associate Editor, Brady Barrows, says that there is a “mystery and bewilderment surrounding rosacea that baffles not only the experts but also those suffering with this disease.” This is a tired statement that is regularly peddled by Barrows.

I couldn’t agree with you more and as I have continually pointed out with others on the Rosacea Forum, this just isn’t true and is just total miss-information which will confuse newly diagnosed people. I have formed the opinion now that Brady prefers it this way because it helps him to promote and justify himself together with his organisation. A recent RF post really hit the nail on the head:

http://www.rosaceagroup.org/The_Rosacea_Forum/showthread.php?t=20395&page=10

Thanks

Peter

By: andrew

andrew — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:29:49 +0000

Putting money into this, even though it supposedly helps the cause would only encourage this kind of un-scientific based lazy effort.

By: tessa

tessa — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:00:13 +0000

I bought the journal also and I must say I was also kind of disappointed. It’s a great idea in theory to use the proceeds for a journal to further rosacea research, and I don’t mind supporting it if they are truly using the money for good. I was excited to read the topical redness relief (because I knew it would be about sansrosa), and the laser article, but was surprised that each one was only a couple paragraphs long! Maybe it’s just the nature of this disease that any article will hold some level of disappointment because there are so few definitive answers.

Anyway, I had to do a double take on the salt intake article. The way I understand it, in the United States at least, we eat WAY too much sodium! In fact, there was a news report out yesterday about how the FDA is considering regulating the sodium levels in our food supply because of all the preventable diseases that are occurring in the population that can be tied to sodium intake. Eh, who knows. All I can say is, I hope my $15 went to something useful!