Talk:Chloracne

Someone should look into this
The article seems like it might be legit but in the last sentence it switches mid way from medical to some kind of weird out of touch political crap.

"The breakdown of the lymph nodes creates an increase in terror in the Balkan States, where the President has been visiting recently to create tension between the Jesuit Soadians and the Macedonian Cranians of the area. The peace of the world is being toward the French and German societies of the late 1900's."

How about this bit: "Zodiac discusses the effects of chlorine dioxide (Polychlorinated dibenzodioxin) contamination". Let's start off with this: chlorine dioxide != polychlorinated dibenzodioxin. Now maybe I'll have to go and find the book and read it with this in mind - maybe the quote is accurate. It is very misleading, regardless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.154.237 (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

deleted reference to Viktor Yushchenko
See also: Viktor Yushchenko

Remission
"The lesions are effectively permanent (mean duration in one study was 26 years) and are highly resistant to the usual treatments for acne."

Recent news say that Mr. Yushchenko would be able to cure his disfigurement after about two years. Is this sentence inaccurate? Is the news inaccurate? --Liberlogos 23:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. -- FirstPrinciples 03:11, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yushchenko timeline info
[link] - There appears to be justifiable doubt about the dioxin poisoning being the primary factor of his chloracne, most notably the fact that dioxin-caused chloracne takes months to appear (verified by numerous other sites). My vote would be to remove references to Yushchenko from this page until the matter is settled, if it is.

Your cited reference is obviously a propaganda article. Skin lesions after dioxin occurred almost immediately in Seveso kids and I would expect the onset to be dose dependent. I do not see a need to remove the Yushchenko case from this article

From your own post...
 * The first sign of health problems, burn-like skin lesions, appeared on children a few hours after the accident. Beginning in September of that year, chloracne, a severe skin disorder usually associated with dioxin, broke out on some of the people most exposed to the cloud.

Two things...the accident occurred in July, Chloracne did not appear until September. "Burn-like skin lesions" do not equate with Chloracne which appears as nodules, blackheads and whiteheads. More details here, in which it states: "Chloracne is a rare acne-like skin condition caused by certain toxic chemicals including the dioxins. It develops a few months after swallowing, inhaling or touching the responsible agent". You can definitely deny the first page I linked as biased, however you will find that every substantial Chloracne reference will give the same timeline. Quite simply, it does not happen so quickly.

Anyway, I'd be fine with keeping it as long as some sort of disclaimer based on the facts of Chloracne was included.

Kickstart70 09:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

disputed
Anon user added lots of comments about why that disease cannot be chloracne. I don't know enough about the medicine, but somebody should look into it. After verification by a third user, please remove either the "disputed" or the claims. If the claims are kept, then they would need some editing. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:55, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolved, thanks to Cacycle (see below). -- Chris 73 Talk 23:51, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've seen a number of sources that state that in cases of severe exposure, chloracne can appear within days. I will try to find one and post a source here as soon as possible Epistatsis 19:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)epistatsis

RE: ""Burn-like skin lesions" do not equate with Chloracne" -->"chloracne often appears first as facial comedones and cysts, but sometimes manifests itself as severe skin lesions, probably resulting from a systemic response." from Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 55 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS: HUMAN HEALTH ASPECTS  online at http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad55.htm Epistatsis 19:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC) epistatsis

'Supposedly'?
Ok, this is supposed to be an article about Chloracne, not Yushchenko. Why is this even being debated, other than the fact that he's apparently one of many thousands of people with this disease? Now we've got a number of mentions that he 'supposedly' has the disease and none of the case that shows that he might not.

How about we remove all mentions of Yuchchenko, except perhaps a link to his own Wikipedia page, perhaps with the single line "Viktor Yushchenko has claimed that his facial lesions have been caused by Chloracne."? The political relations here really have no bearing on the disease.

FWIW, I don't know much at all about Ukrainian politics, nor do I need to know more. From what it sounds like in the media it looks like the better man won. But that still shouldn't affect this page.

Kickstart70 23:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No serious references were provided to cast doubts about dioxin (or dioxin-like) poisoning. The provided new links were not about any such doubts. Elevated dioxin-like activity was found in his blood (http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8251/8251notw6.html). Unfortunately, I could not locate results of confirming tests (e.g. GC-MS) after about December, 12. Cacycle 23:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That really isn't the point. This is an article about Chloracne, not Viktor Yushchenko, yet the article has multiple references to Yushchenko. At the same time, it does not contain the references that actually contain clinical information on Chloracne (ie. the DermNet NZ information regarding how long Chloracne takes to appear). So, I've got to ask, is this a politics page or a disease page?

Kickstart70 05:45, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what your problem is. Yushchenko is clearly the most prominent sufferer of the disease; his condition is extremely topical (excuse the pun) and his diagnosis is beyond all reasonable doubt and supported by multiple independent experts. In any case, the "multiple" references to Yushchenko actually amount to one image and a single sentence in the current version of the page. Again, I really don't see why you have a problem. -- FirstPrinciples 10:24, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that while he may be the most prominent sufferer, there are discrepancies between his diagnosis and what all other medical sources are saying, in terms of the length of time required for the disease to appear. If we're going to have a page about Chloracne, then lets have the facts about Chloracne. Ignoring all other medical sources in favour of one example of the disease that does (whether anyone here likes it or not) have doubts cast upon it seems a little disingenuous. -- Kickstart70 18:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You can see the typical symptoms and you have the results of an objective test - that are the important facts for wikipedia. Chloracne is not very common and obviously not much data has been collected from cases with different incorporated doses, ways of incorporation, and differing agents with dioxin-like activity (there are hundreds of dioxins and related compounds with such dioxin-like activity). Any single one of these variables as well as inter-personal variability would be expected to cause a different time-course of the symptoms compared to e.g. the Seveso sufferers.

It is important to be critical with your sources. The first-hand arguments of the doctors who examined the patient, of the scientists who conducted the tests, and the opinion of recognized dioxin experts counts way more than obviously crude accusations by political antagonists, conspiracy theorists, or non-experts (even if they have a MD title).

Cacycle 20:00, 18 Jan2005 (UTC)

I thought the article was well done. The mention of Viktor Yushchenko is appropriate and reminds physicians that chloracne in this case is a symptom of deliberate dioxin poisoning.Philiphughesmd 04:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yushchecko case findings
As of today (Aug 8, 2009) doctors who worked on Yushchenko report that the skin eruptions serve a purpose in poisoning recovery, that they are actually organs that produce large amounts of enzymes which metabolize the dioxin.

This could be hype, or there could be truth to it, but it's something to keep track of and, possibly, incorporate into the article if appropriate.

Spope3 (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda
I personally have suffered from chloracne for 25 yrs. The statements that it goes away after 2 years is not true. I also experienced pain, depression, obsessive Compulsive and bipolar symptoms. Every family on my block where I grew up has cancer OCD, depression, chloracne etc. Much of what is being repeated as facts is Monsanto propaganda spread to mitigate more lawsuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.139.236 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Facebook as a reference
, Hi... Is it acceptable to use Facebook as a reference? plz check references 7 and 10 --محمود (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No FB is not suitable Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)