One was annual pediatric-dermatological joint meeting, one was by a dermatological professor for doctors, one was by another dermatological professor for patients and families and the last one was by doctors of dermatology and oriental medicine for patients.

In conclusion, all of them were disappointing for me.
Despites of passions of all speakers to search means for AD improvement, I felt very unpleasant.

It was not because I found almost no new informations in them, but I couldn't agree their optimism.
All of them just recommended their measures as they are quite promising.
Their saying was like "It's important to do this without fail to improve your AD!..."

I felt so doubtful.
If they are all true, AD patients should be happier than now.

I think AD keeps being a main theme in dermatological, pediatric or allergic medicine in recent decades because it surely is a defficult disease.
Lots of patients and families assemble in such lectures because many patients cannot solve their AD and desire another hope.

I don't deny some patients are getting fortunate cure by these newer measures and/or orthodox AD therapies.
However, there must be many patients still suffering in spite of all these possible efforts.

Certain wise audience must know it.
Then, these one-way leadings would end up in farces.

In today, every doctor has some incurable AD patients,
and there are considerable AD patints who are losing their way to recover.
In such miserable situation, presentations limited in successful cases looks definitely unrealistic.

If speakers i.e., doctors keep ignoring the dark side, thier assertions won't have enough power to persuade audience.

In one of the lectures, a doctor asked the speaker, "What percentage of the total patients you cared got satisfactory improvement?"
I thought it was indeed a natural question, but the speaker disliked it.

Informations everybody desires to know is not a measure which is said by specialists to be effective, but a measure which truely is to be effective.

Maybe, most of them does not wish dreamy cure.
They already know the hard fact.
They may accept some experimental measures of minor possibility on their own responsibilities if doctors sincerely propose them to patients.

Nevertheless, doctors just insist on repeating conventional meetings with trifle quesion-and-answer periods.
Their purpose looks like to suffice their authority.

There exist a serious credibility gap between AD doctors and AD patients.
And more, there also exist similar gap getween authoritative and genaral AD doctors.

Why did this gap happen?
Therapeutic measures, of cource, are originally for patients' cure.
Then, for what are the therapies that are distant from what patients want to?

I think there's no meaning in a therapy patients do not admit.
Forcing means unhappiness for both doctors and patients.

I ask doctors to change their directions to recognize patients' dissatisfaction.
Please don't misunderstand it originates from patients' ignorance.

For, I am confident you doctors can remember at once a few or more AD patints you care with unpleasant course, aren't you?
Patients will not want to reproach you.
It is just a difficult fact.

If doctors refuse to admit it, AD patients will not be able to trust them.
If they can be generous to admit it, a patient can rely on a guide, named doctor, to walk on this difficult way of AD with.

Patients' anxieties are not false.
Doctors' efforts are not in vain.
Provided each can try to understand the other, instead of blaming each other, considerate relation could be established.

I dreamed another chance to attend a meeting which will warm my mind.

2009.7.(translated 09.9)