uniform dots

>>8946249
btw, I posted this in /x/ earlier, but didn't get many responses. I want to see if sci has a possible explanation.

Probably leaning on something or whatever caused those to form was contact with an artificial structure, like a computer chair or such.

>>8946357
No. I don't think that's the case. If you look it up, a lot of people have had this condition, and all(as far as I've seen) have said that they hadn't came into contact with any object that could have caused it. I'm pretty sure you would know if you had, considering it is a unique pattern.

>>8946420
Also, I should add

People generally notice when they make contact with something hard enough to leave a mark. For example, if you lean against a hard linear edge, you feel the pressure and notice the imprint when you take your hand away. When was the last time you pressed hard enough against something to make a mark and you didn't feel it?
Also, marks made by contact generally don't last for a significant amount of time.
Maybe more importantly, marks made by contact are actual IMPRINTS. Meaning that they are depressions in your skin. From what I gather, these uniform dots are not depressions.

File: honeycomb-530987_960_720.jpg (161KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 960x720px

>>8946420
It is not a unique pattern. Not by far. It actually corresponds to the tessellation that allows for the most compartmentalized area with the least amount of border length, and evolutionary optimization has gotten it to occur in nature on the eyes of flies, the honeycombs of bees, turtle shells, snake scales, pineapple skins, and more. Even disregarding that, there are plenty of artificial mesh patterns, including within some clothing, that can result in such a pattern if it's pressed against the skin.

If I were to concede further benefit of the doubt, the immune system doing its business may have caused just normal goosebumps on the skin to become inflamed. Take a closer look at the goosebumps on your arm the next time you get them. They're pretty regular in places.

>>8946443
>there are plenty of artificial mesh patterns, including within some clothing, that can result in such a pattern if it's pressed against the skin.

I wouldn't say plenty, and regardless, I think you would know if something pressed against you hard enough to make a mark, especially if you haven't been around anything that could make such a pattern.
That also doesn't account for what I said earlier. See below:

>Maybe more importantly, marks made by contact are actual IMPRINTS. Meaning that they are depressions in your skin. From what I gather, these uniform dots are not depressions.

>the immune system doing its business may have caused just normal goosebumps on the skin to become inflamed.

And why would that be? I'm not saying that's wrong, but don't you think it's kind of strange? Especially considering it isn't a periodic reaction, or something that happens multiple times or for many people.
Also, it doesn't happen for many people relatively speaking, but multiple people have had the same reaction.
People's bodies have all kinds of reactions to things, but rarely are they visually symmetric.

I don't get why this doesn't interest people. Sure, maybe it's not aliens or whatever, but people are getting visible dots on their skin, and there isn't even a hint of an explanation. It's not recognized by the public at large or the scientific or medical community either.

>>8946462>>8946443
one more thing:

If it is indeed the body's goosebumps being inflamed, why does it only happen in sections with regular patterns?

Also, to further explain my previous point:

>Especially considering it isn't a periodic reaction, or something that happens multiple times or for many people.

For example, people's immune systems react to things like the cold or the flu, and nobody freaks out because they are common and happen periodically. If you were to get a runny nose, you probably wouldn't freak out over it.

>>8946462

It's pretty normal for me to have these markings if I've been scratching a lot on the triceps on my arm. Like >>8946443 said, it's just goosebumps turning red. No one's talking about it because it's really mundane and doesn't beg any questions when you see it in real life, only when it's taken out of context with something like a google image search.

>>8946470
>It's pretty normal for me to have these markings if I've been scratching a lot on the triceps on my arm.

Speak for yourself. These markings aren't the result of scratching, if the individuals' accounts are to be believed. People scratch all the time and never get these marks.

>it's just goosebumps turning red.

Do you actually know this for a fact?

Look at my other post>>8946468

>If it is indeed the body's goosebumps being inflamed, why does it only happen in sections with regular patterns?

Explain that.

>No one's talking about it because it's really mundane

No? Like I said, google search it, evidently people are talking about it. The public doesn't talk about it because it doesn't happen to a lot of people, but people still talk about it.

>and doesn't beg any questions when you see it in real life

Yes it does. It begs all the questions that I've asked in this thread, and more. That's why people talk about it.

>only when it's taken out of context with something like a google image search.

How is it being taken out of context? This thread is asking the same thing that was asked when the image was originally posted on whatever forum or website.

schizo thread

File: 20130303_210435_1.jpg (60KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1024x768px

>>8946478
I looked up the images you're talking about, and Google only ever seems to have them on UFO and conspiracy sites, as if they were taken specifically for the purpose of showing up on those sites. It seems very odd that these pictures are not showing up in places where people are not drawing paranormal conclusions. No WedMD, no dermatology/health forums, no independent studies being conducted, not even any reddit discussions.

However, there is one ehealthforum post here, without any pictures:
>http://ehealthforum.com/health/red-dots-on-back-in-pattern-t281841.html

But none of these descriptions match the pattern you're describing. One guy even came back and said he realized it was just that he slept on a carpet.

>>8946462
Sadly there's an awful lot in human medicine which doesn't even make sense. For example, anaphylaxis, slightly related to your question: the medical community does not truly understand anaphylaxis. We can categorise it as a collection of signs & symptoms but we don't really understand the pathology of anaphylaxis and other systemic inflammatory responses. Treatments simply aim to treat the side-effects long enough for your body to self-regulate and recover.

If we don't understand such a widespread and substantial problem with a good evidence base and a lot of research performed, why would we even come close to understanding a fairly niche issue with little impact on a person's life, almost no evidence base, and no large-scale studies performed? And more importantly, why should we invest the time and money into trying to understand it over the monumentally more important ones we're not even close to figuring out?

In the end, OP, sometimes it is acceptable to shrug, admit you don't know, and call it quits. Perhaps not the ideal, especially for an academic, but medicine is ultimately a pragmatic discipline and must be able to push aside its curiosity in the pursuit of more efficient goals.