I came to know that Scleroderma can be caused from Silicosis---a lungs disease caused from the inhalation of silica dust.
A similar lungs disease called talcosis can also happen from inhalation of talcum powder for many years. But can it also cause Scleroderma?
Is anyone diagnosed with Talcosis and Scleroderma?
I see you posting a lot of questions lately. I assume your newly diagnosed. I understand how overwhelming it is when you're first told you have scleroderma and you look it up and see all the terrible stuff you have coming.
As far as I know, scleroderma currently has no known causes so I don't know where you're getting your information from but I think it's false.
The reason why I think there is a connection between talcosis and Scleroderma is because therre are two causes of Scleroderma---hereditary and environmental. If not inherited from parents then the most common environmental cause is Silicosis, which is caused from the inhalation of silica dust.
Silica is also present in talcum powder and inhalation of talcum powder for a long time could also cause a similar to silicosis kind of a disease called talcosis,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scler...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silic...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmo...
So the important thing to take from that is that it "seems" to be a connection. As in, it's one hypothesis. There is no current confirmed cause of Scleroderma. You mention its hereditary but while "there is a hereditary component, this is relatively small. To put this in context, if someone has a first degree relative with scleroderma (for example a parent, brother or sister) then the chances of that person developing scleroderma is around 1%."sruk.co.uk/scleroderma/newl...
Also for getting information on scleroderma may I suggest SRUK or asking your rheumatologist, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information as it can be edited by essentially anyone.
I was diagnosed with scleroderma in 2022. There’s no history of it in my family and I have not been exposed to silica. It’s not an hereditary condition but you are more likely to be genetically predisposed to autoimmune issues if others in your family have autoimmune diseases.
My mother has RA, I have Grave’s Disease, mild RA and systemic sclerosis (all sounds terrible but actually I have mild symptoms and feel very well). I’m one of 4 children and my siblings don’t have any autoimmune diseases. So I guess it’s the luck of the draw.
I would be very wary of any information on Wikipedia as it is not peer reviewed and anyone can post anything they like which people then take as fact because it is on Wikipedia.The cause(s) of Scleroderma are unknown at this time. There are overlaps with a lot of other conditions - pulmonary fibrosis, Lupus and many others and these sometimes lead to 'links' being made that don't exist.
SRUK is one of the few reliable sources of information.
The reason why the information on wikipedia can't be denied is because Silicosis is caused by Silica and any talc is derived from grinding calcium carbonate stones. Such stones do contain silica and some manufacturers can't purify the talc to remove the silica completely. So, inhaling such talc would let silica to deposit in the lungs. Once the silica gets into the lungs, it can't be cleared.
Besides that, there are silicates also present in talc like magnesium silicate and any silicate is another form of silica, which can also cause silicosis.
Talcosis is nothing but silicosis but it's named like that because it happens from inhaling talc.
Even Mayoclinic explains the same thing about silicosis.
my.clevelandclinic.org/heal...
If some one get's silicosis then that person becomes vulnerable to Scleroderma.
I completely with everything in your reply apart from the last sentence. There is no proven link between Silicosis and Scleroderma. There is no evidence that having Silicosis makes you more vulnerable to Scleroderma. As someone who has provided medical evidence in court I am always sure to fact check any information and try to verify it with an independent source.Putting out false information, albeit with the best intentions, can be very harmful, particularly to a vulnerable community.
Keeping fake information on authentic sites like mayo clinic and wikipedia is not that easy. Anything fake would be removed with no time.
On the link below you can see that it's said how chemicals can cause Scleroderma.
mayoclinic.org/diseases-con...
On Wikipedia it's clearly explained that "There are some data revealing an association between silicosis and certain autoimmune diseases, including nephritis, scleroderma, and systemic lupus erythematosus, especially in acute or accelerated silicosis.".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silic...
What you can say about that know?
I was diagnosed in 1996 and assured then and now there is no recognised cause for it. I was told initially that there could be a possible link to trauma or chlorine, both of which I had in my life, but it has never been proven.
Like others, I would say be very careful from where you obtain your information.
I know there are a lot of fake information online but wiikipedia and mayoclinic are always reliable.
Have you found any information on wikipedia to be unreliable?
I have had articles removed from Wikipedia in the past because they contained false information.You may wish to see Wikipedia's own list for a 12 month period.
In answer to your question, I never use any website that is not an officially recognised one, or genuine medical one, linked to any of my conditions for information. I understand how difficult it must be for you where you live to access information, particularly if you are an author and this is your only source of income. The Mayo Clinic is a well known medical facility and if you look at their website Scleroderma is a sub heading so I assume will be treatable there. The following is just one of the many statements I have found online regarding Wikipedia.
'Wikipedia's reliability has been a topic of debate since 2005. Research studies have shown that Wikipedia is roughly as reliable as other sources commonly accepted as “accurate”. However, information on Wikipedia can be manipulated, and sometimes almost undetectable, making it not 100% reliable. Researchers, teachers, journalists, and public officials do not regard Wikipedia as a reliable source, but rather as a valuable "starting point" for researchers when they pass over content to examine the listed references, citations, and sources. As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or simply incorrect'.
You can also research Wikipedia.org and trawl through how they define the criteria for inclusion in the articles they publish.
Once again, please be very careful if you intend to include anything in a published article that may leave you open to any legal problems. You would have to include any books, references you used in your bibliography as an appendix at the back of your book in any event.
Good luck!
I find Wikipedia reliable because whatever information I found there was also told by the health care professionals. If you can't believe on Wikipedia then you also can't believe any health care professional too. How can you be sure that a doctor is telling the truth?
As I said previously I would never use Wikipedia for medical references and gave you my reasons. You are entitled to choose whatever sites you want for points of reference. After you asked me a question, you seemed not to have taken on board my answer. As far as medical professionals in the UK are concerned, they train for years and select their specialties during this time and I personally think your final sentence is insulting to them. Yes, I do trust my consultant and rheumatologist who saved my life 14 years ago. I do not think they got the information to do that from Wikipedia or any such website!
I didn't mean to insult them but I want to aware you about what they can do to you. ot all doctors are angels. Some are working only for making money.
Wikipedia is not a profit making business platform but it's an open source platform runs through donations. So, I don't think any crap information would be there for any profit making intentions. Moreover, most scholars are behind most of the articles on Wikipedia that are referred by students and professionals around the globe.
In the UK we are extremely fortunate to have the NHS which is under an inordinate amount of stress at the present time, but we do not pay any money for our health care or services. The medical staff who work in the NHS are underpaid and overworked but continue to deliver front line medical care to the best of their ability, and far beyond most of the time. From what you have written I doubt you have any personal concept of healthcare in the UK. Yes, there have been the odd mistakes which have been reported in the press and news, but the majority of the population here praise our medical staff unconditionally for their commitment but they are only human at the end of the day. A lot of people feel there are too many at the ‘top of the chain’ who take money which front line services desperately need, but that is a question for another day. There are those who are able to pay for private medical care too and bypass the NHS, but on occasions it is not always quicker and quite often the same consultant is available on the NHS.
Our views on the use of Wikipedia will continue to differ, but I still do not think any dr or professor would use it as a source for their work nor have the time to submit articles that are current or up to date. There are medical journals, conferences etc where they are invited to attend alongside other experts in their fields which are far more prestigious and a much better platform for them to deliver ground breaking research. Someone then at a later date may take this and post it but it would not be their own work. Wikipedia states it has to say where the source has obtained its facts but not ever having used it I can’t confirm this for any medical article or that people reading them actually do or just accept that it is correct. Wikipedia themselves state articles can be tampered with and it’s not a 100% reliable source, but each to their own as the saying goes!
Just how you are praising NHS, I praise Wikipedia and it's contributors too. Because of Wiki, I was able to find out what kind of medical negligence one doctor was doing to my mum.
In order to validate the integrity of the articles on Wikipedia, I always cross-check the information on other articles from other resources. Not a single article I have found fake on Wiki till know.
Living with scleroderma 
What causes scleroderma?
Bronchiectasis and Scleroderma.
Scleroderma 
