Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Cook, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Nottingham Trent University

If you ever visit my office, you’ll be greeted by a crowd of tiny footballers frozen in mid-stride. These are Corinthian football figures – the big-headed, plastic, caricature miniatures that once filled the shelves of 1990s stores and the pursuits of football-mad kids like me.

For me, what began as a childhood hobby has evolved into something more meaningful. In my academic life, it is now a lens through which I explore how communities co-create value, preserve culture and sustain brand legacies long after the original companies disappear.

Corinthian Marketing Ltd, the firm behind these figures, ceased operations several years ago. Yet the brand lives on. Not through corporate revival, but through the passion of collectors.

Fan-led online communities, social media content, websites and even a convention to celebrate the figures’ 30th anniversary have helped restore prominence. Many collectors buy, sell and trade figures with one another. Some go to great lengths to catalogue and showcase their collections.

A handful of more artistically minded fans even repaint them into different retro kits or sculpt and 3D-print new ones. This grassroots revival is more than nostalgia – it’s a form of co-creation.

In my doctoral study and subsequent work I have explored the concept of creating shared value (CSV). It’s an outlook originally advanced by Michael Porter, often considered the father of modern business strategy, and Mark Kramer, a social impact strategist focused on social change.

CSV encourages organisations to generate both economic and social value through collaborative engagement. It has gained traction in a variety of contexts, where value is increasingly understood as emerging from networks of people rather than isolated firms.

The Corinthian collector community exemplifies this. This community has re-energised and evolved a brand without any formal commercial backing, demonstrating how value can be cultivated and shared through community-led action.

Collecting as co-creation

This co-creation is deeply emotional. The figures tap into powerful memories — from family holidays spent hunting for rare finds in unfamiliar shops to negotiating swap deals with school friends between (and sometimes during) lessons. They also evoke the thrill of watching childhood footballing heroes in action.

Their exaggerated features and iconic kits aren’t just design quirks – they’re symbolic anchors for identity. Recent research shows that emotional branding and brand love are key drivers of consumer loyalty, especially when products evoke personal and cultural meaning.

In my own research, I have examined how emotional engagement fosters brand attachment, particularly in sport where fans form lasting bonds with teams, players and merchandise.

I still remember the thrill of stumbling upon my first ever figure on a trip to the local corner shop – right-back Warren Barton in England’s iconic Euro 96 kit. While Barton only ever made three appearances for England and didn’t even make the final Euro 96 squad – and the model itself isn’t worth anything monetarily – it represents the beginnings of my passion for collecting, and remains the most treasured piece in my collection.

Collecting is in itself a form of shared value creation. It generates cultural and emotional value, not just economic. The act of curating a collection, trading with others and preserving football history contributes to a broader ecosystem of fandom and identity. In CSV terms, this reflects the idea of “value in context” – where meaning is derived through interaction, not passive consumption.

If you’re part of a collector community like the Corinthian Collector’s Club, you’re not just helping to shape how a brand is remembered and talked about, you’re actively reviving and reinvigorating it. This kind of involvement is what research calls “actor engagement”: the process of investing time, emotion, and creativity into shared platforms that keep a brand’s legacy alive.

What’s striking is how this mirrors the dynamics I have studied in sport sponsorship. In my research, I have explored how sponsors and event hosts co-create value with other stakeholder groups such as fans — not just through advertising, but by enabling meaningful interactions, such as educational initiatives or reducing plastic waste.

Similarly, Corinthian collectors have taken on the role of sustaining and evolving brand meaning, not through corporate strategy, but through dedicating their energy, sharing information, and taking collective action. In both cases, value is co-created through relationships – whether that be between brands and fans, products and memories, or communities and culture.

The Corinthian story shows that even in the absence of the very company that founded the product themselves, shared value can flourish when people care enough to keep it alive.

In a world increasingly dominated by digital platforms and ephemeral content, these little plastic figures can remind us that tangible artefacts still matter. They offer lessons in emotional branding, community cultivation and the enduring power of nostalgia. And they show that real, resonant value can be created not only by commercial organisations, but by the people who love what those companies once offered.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

David Cook does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Miniature Heroes: what collecting big-headed football figures revealed to me about fan culture – https://theconversation.com/miniature-heroes-what-collecting-big-headed-football-figures-revealed-to-me-about-fan-culture-266082

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex

Donald Trump has posthumously awarded the rightwing influencer Charlie Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the US.

In an emotional ceremony at the White House on October 14, Trump told his Kirk’s widow Erika that her husband “was a martyr for truth and for freedom … From Socrates and St. Peter, from Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King, those who change history the most — and he really did — have always risked their lives for causes they were put on earth to defend.”

Martyrdom has a long and successful history in US political mythology. This arguably began with Joseph Warren a Boston physician and American patriot who was killed at the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775.

Warren was involved in almost every major insurrectionary act in the Boston area before dying in battle and became a rallying point for the American independence movement.

Another martyr was abolitionist John Brown of “John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave” fame. While he was alive, Brown was seen by many as difficult and fanatical.

But after he was captured and hanged for treason in 1859, he was elevated to martyr status as a folk hero of the Unionist side in the American civil war. As the song says: “his soul goes marching on”.

Some martyrs have been tied to civil rights, democratic and independence movements – think of Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers in the US, Patrice Lumumba in Congo and Mahatma Gandhi in India, whose memory has inspired resistance to tyranny and injustice.

Bobby Sands, the imprisoned IRA MP who died in 1981 after a lengthy hunger strike that aimed to get IRA prisoners political status, is now widely credited as an important figure in the Irish republican cause. At the time, Sands and his fellow IRA soldiers were treated as terrorists by the British government.

Mythmaking for legitimacy

But it’s authoritarian movements and regimes for whom martyrs often become almost central to their ideology, helping them manufacture legitimacy through mythmaking. Authoritarian movements use martyrs to exploit people’s emotions.

They storify their deaths – exaggerating their significance and reinforcing grief, pride and vengeance through elaborate ceremonies and in monuments and school curriculums. It’s a way to shape collective memory in ways that provide a moral justification for repression and provide a rallying point for loyalty.

In fascist Italy, after the dictator Benito Mussolini took power in 1922, he had the remains of 300,000 soldiers transferred to massive new ceremonial graveyards with great ceremony and accompanied by priests loyal to Il Duce’s regime. Guidebooks, pamphlets, films and newspaper articles were used to publicise these ossuaries. They became a must-see destination for schools, universities and clubs.

Mussolini was adept at using these “fallen heroes” as a central tool of Italian fascist propaganda. From then on, any Italian fascist who had died for the cause was glorified as a hero.

His aim was to inspire others to have similar levels of loyalty and religious devotion. It’s a lesson that clearly hasn’t been lost on the current Italian prime minister, Georgia Meloni, pursuing a similar tactic in sanitising the memory of prominent figures from the country’s fascist era.

Martyrs were also important to the mythology of the Bolsheviks. Bolsheviks killed in the cause were given red funerals, which were theatrical and verged on the religious. They offered a release and motivation for zealous members in support of the movement. Graves were treated as shrines and the stories of those who died would fill Soviet schoolbooks.

Adolf Hitler and his propaganda chief Josef Goebbels also used martyrs to great effect. The 14 Nazi party members killed during the unsuccessful Munich “beer hall putsch” of 1923 were memorialised in a square in the centre of Munich and given their own day (after the war, the four police officers killed defending the Weimar republic were given a plaque in the same square).

But the Nazi movement’s most famous martyr was Horst Wessel. A young stormtrooper who was shot in a street brawl with a communist agitator, Wessel had written a song glorifying the Nazi movement’s struggle against communism. After his death in 1930, the “Horst Wessel lied” became the Nazi anthem and his death became a justification for fighting (and after the Nazis took power, imprisoning) opponents of the Nazis.

They also serve

In North Korea, Kim Jong-suk – the wife of eternal leader Kim il-Sung – is still portrayed as a martyr for the regime in the fight against Japanese occupation and in supporting her husband. Her death is commemorated each year as a quasi-sacred event.

It all helps to reinforce a culture of unquestioning loyalty to the Kim clan dynasty. By the early 2000s, her biography became a separate subject in the North Korean curriculum, while a museum was set up in her honour.

Martyrs also play an important role in Iran. Iranians who died for the revolution have been heralded as heroes. Their photographs adorn city streets and commemorations fill the calendar.

Those that died in the Iran-Iraq war are venerated in massive murals, monuments, billboards and comic strips. Massive pictures of more recent “martyrs”, such as Qassem Soleimani, the former head of the Revolutionary Guard’s al-Quds force who was assassinated in 2020 in a US drone strike, line some of the main thoroughfares in the capital Tehran.

There is an enduring power of political martyrdom that is useful to both democratic and authoritarian movements. Democrats tend to use martyrs to broaden participation and protect pluralism, while in authoritarian movements, martyr narratives often fuse faith with politics and, in some cases, glorify violence.

In the case of Charlie Kirk, some scholars have even argued that Kirk’s elevation to martyr status appears part of a Trump administration campaign to vilify the liberal left.

The deaths of key figures that are attached to certain regimes or movements can be used to persuade people beyond reason, inspire undying loyalty and bind followers more tightly to each other and to their leaders. The US is more polarised than ever over what kind of martyr Charlie Kirk has become – and what, exactly, his death is meant to symbolise.

Natasha Lindstaedt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Charlie Kirk: the latest in a long line of political martyrs, from left and right – https://theconversation.com/charlie-kirk-the-latest-in-a-long-line-of-political-martyrs-from-left-and-right-266264

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lynn Hilditch, Lecturer in Fine Art and Design Praxis, Liverpool Hope University

Following on from the success of Kate Winslet’s biopic Lee, released last year, Lee Miller has never been more in vogue. Unsurprisingly perhaps, tickets for the new Lee Miller retrospective at Tate Britain sold out during its first weekend.

Curated mostly in chronological order, the exhibition steers viewers through a series of gallery spaces each documenting a key era in Miller’s multi-faceted career, from Vogue model to surrealist muse, fashion photographer to war correspondent, and finally to hostess and cordon bleu cook.

Tate’s exhibition is certainly not the first UK retrospective of Miller’s work, but it is arguably the most large-scale show since The Art of Lee Miller at the V&A in 2007. This new exhibition tells Miller’s complex story through approximately 250 modern and vintage prints, film and selected original publications.

Beginning at the height of the jazz age in fashionable New York, we first encounter a striking photomaton self-portrait of Miller taken around 1927. Here, at 19, she became one of the first supermodels, posing for the likes of celebrated fashion photographers Edward Steichen and George Hoyningen-Huene.

With a letter of introduction from Steichen, she entered the exciting and hedonistic world of 1920s Paris. Here she apprenticed herself to surrealist artist Man Ray and rubbed creative shoulders with artists, writers and intellectuals, many of whom appear in the exhibition in portraits taken by Miller.

A screening of Jean Cocteau’s 1930 film The Blood of the Poet (Le sang d’un poète) shows Miller in her only film role as a statue that comes to life, placing her directly within the Parisian avant garde.

In another short, newly restored and rarely seen experimental film, Miller and Man Ray are seen filming each other with a handheld camera revealing a playful intimacy in their relationship as Man Ray blows bubbles from a clay pipe while Miller giggles as she caresses a phallic sculpture by Romanian artist Constantin Brancusi.

Many photographs in this exhibition are very familiar having been widely reproduced – from the torn curtain exposing a desert landscape (Portrait of Space, Al Bulyaweb, near Siwa, Egypt, 1937), to the portrait of Miller defiantly washing off the dirt from Dachau in Hitler’s bath, to the surreal and occasionally humorous portraits of a devastated London captured during the blitz.

However, there are several previously unseen photographs printed from Miller’s original negatives or borrowed from the archives of other creatives. Two examples include a portrait of Miller’s friend and fellow artist Eileen Agar with one of her sculptures (Eileen Agar, London, 1937), and the wonderfully disorientating shot of the Helwan Cement Factory taken in Cairo in 1936, demonstrating Miller’s innovative modernist sensibility.

Miller’s war photographs are, by their very nature, difficult viewing. Sensitively curated by Hilary Floe in consultation with Dr Andy Pearce at the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education, scenes from the concentration camps are a dramatic change in tone from the humour and pun of her Egyptian and blitz images.

In razor-sharp contrast, Miller’s photographs from Buchenwald and Dachau are like a sucker punch to the stomach – hard-hitting and painful to absorb. There was a noticeable silence in the gallery as cameras and phones were lowered, Miller’s photographs inviting us to reflect and question our own humanity.

“I usually don’t take pictures of horrors,” Miller wrote to Audrey Withers, editor of British Vogue. “But don’t think that every town and every area isn’t rich with them. I hope Vogue will feel that they can publish these pictures.” Many of them were published, transforming the fashion and lifestyle magazine into an important platform for reporting the war in Europe – particularly to the magazine’s American readership.

Miller’s photographs of refugees and children in the immediate aftermath of the war are some of her more poignant images: the haunting gaze of two children waiting for gruel soup; opera singer Irmgard Seefried singing an aria from Madam Butterfly among the ruins of the Vienna Opera House; and an old woman scavenging for scraps in the “Field of Blood” park in Vérmezõ, Budapest.

The final gallery space concludes the exhibition with a selection portraits of Miller’s friends, many taken for her final Vogue photo-essay Working Guests (1953), transporting us from the devastation of post-war Europe to the more peaceful setting of Farley Farm in East Sussex (now home to the Lee Miller Archives).

Here, Miller lived with her second husband Roland Penrose, whom she married in 1946, and her son Antony, born in 1947. Suffering from what would today be diagnosed as PTSD, and struggling with severe bouts of depression and alcoholism, Miller took on her final role. Replacing the darkroom with the kitchen she became a hostess and an established cook – a more ordinary end to an extraordinary life.

Lee Miller is showing at Tate Britain in London till 15 February 2026.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Lynn Hilditch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Lee Miller retrospective confirms her as one of the most important photographers of the 20th century – https://theconversation.com/lee-miller-retrospective-confirms-her-as-one-of-the-most-important-photographers-of-the-20th-century-267452

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Taha Yasseri, Workday Professor of Technology and Society, Trinity College Dublin

Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company, xAI, is about to launch the early beta version of Grokipedia, a new project to rival Wikipedia.

Grokipedia has been described by Musk as a response to what he views as the “political and ideological bias” of Wikipedia. He has promised that it will provide more accurate and context-rich information by using xAI’s chatbot, Grok, to generate and verify content.

Is he right? The question of whether Wikipedia is biased has been debated since its creation in 2001.

Wikipedia’s content is written and maintained by volunteers who can only cite material that already exists in other published sources, since the platform prohibits original research. This rule, which is designed to ensure that facts can be verified, means that Wikipedia’s coverage inevitably reflects the biases of the media, academia and other institutions it draws from.

This is not limited to political bias. For example, research has repeatedly shown a significant gender imbalance among editors, with around 80%–90% identifying as male in the English-language version.

Because most of the secondary sources used by editors are also historically authored by men, Wikipedia tends to reflect a narrower view of the world, a repository of men’s knowledge rather than a balanced record of human knowledge.

The volunteer problem

Bias on collaborative platforms often emerges from who participates rather than top-down policies. Voluntary participation introduces what social scientists call self-selection bias: people who choose to contribute tend to share similar motivations, values and often political leanings.

Just as Wikipedia depends on such voluntary participation, so does, for example, Community Notes, the fact-checking feature on Musk’s X (formerly Twitter). An analyses of Community Notes, which I conducted with colleagues, shows that its most frequently cited external source – after X itself – is actually Wikipedia.

Other sources commonly used by note authors mainly cluster toward centrist or left-leaning outlets. They even use the same list of approved sources as Wikipedia – the crux of Musk’s criticism against the open online encyclopedia. Yet no-one calls out Musk for this bias.

Wikipedia at least remains one of the few large-scale platforms that openly acknowledges and documents its limitations. Neutrality is enshrined as one of its five foundational principles. Bias exists, but so does an infrastructure designed to make that bias visible and correctable.

Articles often include multiple perspectives, document controversies, even dedicate sections to conspiracy theories such as those surrounding the September 11 attacks. Disagreements are visible through edit histories and talk pages, and contested claims are marked with warnings. The platform is imperfect but self-correcting, and it is built on pluralism and open debate.

Is AI unbiased?

If Wikipedia reflects the biases of its human editors and their sources, AI has the same problem with the biases of its data.

Large language models (LLMs) such as those used by xAI’s Grok are trained on enormous datasets collected from the internet, including social media, books, news articles and Wikipedia itself. Studies have shown that LLMs reproduce existing gender, political and racial biases found in their training data.

Musk has claimed that Grok is designed to counter such distortions, but Grok itself has been accused of bias. One study in which each of four leading LLMs were asked 2,500 questions about politics showed that Grok is more politically neutral than its rivals, but still actually has a left of centre bias (the others lean further left).

If the model behind Grokipedia relies on the same data and algorithms, it is difficult to see how an AI-driven encyclopedia could avoid reproducing the very biases that Musk attributes to Wikipedia.

Worse, LLMs could exacerbate the problem. They operate probabilistically, predicting the most likely next word or phrase based on statistical patterns rather than deliberation among humans. The result is what researchers call an illusion of consensus: an authoritative-sounding answer that hides the uncertainty or diversity of opinions behind it.

As a result, LLMs tend to homogenise political diversity and favour majority viewpoints over minority ones. Such systems risk turning collective knowledge into a smooth but shallow narrative. When bias is hidden beneath polished prose, readers may no longer even recognise that alternative perspectives exist.

Baby/bathwater

Having said all that, AI can still strengthen a project like Wikipedia. AI tools already help the platform to detect vandalism, suggest citations and identify inconsistencies in articles. Recent research highlights how automation can improve accuracy if used transparently and under human supervision.

AI could also help transfer knowledge across different language editions and bring the community of editors closer. Properly implemented, it could make Wikipedia more inclusive, efficient and responsive without compromising its human-centered ethos.

Just as Wikipedia can learn from AI, the X platform could learn from Wikipedia’s model of consensus building. Community Notes allows users to submit and rate notes on posts, but its design limits direct discussion among contributors.

Another research project I was involved in showed that deliberation-based systems inspired by Wikipedia’s talk pages improve accuracy and trust among participants, even when the deliberation happens between humans and AI. Encouraging dialogue rather than the current simple up or down-voting could make Community Notes more transparent, pluralistic and resilient against political polarisation.

Profit and motivation

A deeper difference between Wikipedia and Grokipedia lies in their purpose and perhaps business model. Wikipedia is run by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, and the majority of its volunteers are motivated mainly by public interest. In contrast, xAI, X and Grokipedia are commercial ventures.

Although profit motives are not inherently unethical, they can distort incentives. When X began selling its blue check verification, credibility became a commodity rather than a marker of trust. If knowledge is monetised in similar ways, the bias may increase, shaped by what generates engagement and revenue.

True progress lies not in abandoning human collaboration but in improving it. Those who perceive bias in Wikipedia, including Musk himself, could make a greater contribution by encouraging editors from diverse political, cultural and demographic backgrounds to participate – or by joining the effort personally to improve existing articles. In an age increasingly shaped by misinformation, transparency, diversity and open debate are still our best tools for approaching truth.

Taha Yasseri receives funding from Research Ireland and Workday.

– ref. Grokipedia: Elon Musk is right that Wikipedia is biased, but his AI alternative will be the same at best – https://theconversation.com/grokipedia-elon-musk-is-right-that-wikipedia-is-biased-but-his-ai-alternative-will-be-the-same-at-best-267557

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dan Baumgardt, Senior Lecturer, School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol

Acne is one of the most common skin conditions seen in general practice. Acne vulgaris – the most prevalent form – affects more than 80% of teenagers and young adults (in some countries, it may be as many as 95%), and tends to peak around age 18.

But acne isn’t a single condition. It appears in many forms, affects people at different ages, and can be triggered by a range of factors. Acne-like rosacea, for example, is more common in fair-skinned, middle-aged adults.

Acne may also arise from hormonal changes, exposure to certain chemicals, medications, or even from your job or hobbies. What all these types of acne share is inflammation of the skin, which produces spots and lesions of different kinds, from mild to severe.

One of the earliest and most familiar spots associated with acne vulgaris are comedones – better known as blackheads and whiteheads. Our skin is lined with tiny glands that secrete oil to keep it soft and protected. When these glands become blocked with oil and debris, they form comedones. Closed comedones appear white, while open ones darken when the clogged material reacts with air.

At this stage, acne is usually mild and non-inflammatory. Over time, however, blocked pores can become irritated and infected. When this happens, comedones can develop into papules (small, raised bumps) or pustules, which are spots filled with pus. These often become red, sore and inflamed, which helps explain why acne is so frustrating and sometimes painful.

It’s usually at this stage that the urge to squeeze the spots becomes irresistible, but squeezing rarely helps. In fact, it can make things worse, driving bacteria deeper into the skin, leading to scarring and sometimes causing large, painful cysts or abscesses. Inflammation may also trigger patchy changes in skin colour.

The underlying cause of acne in most cases is a bacterium called cutibacterium acnes, which colonises blocked oil glands. During puberty, a surge of testosterone can stimulate increased oil production, making glands more prone to clogging. Hormonal conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome can have the same effect, as can steroid-based medications.

Read more:
PCOS affects 1 in 8 women worldwide, yet it’s often misunderstood. A name change might help

Other variations of acne exist. Acne excoriée is caused by repeated picking or scratching, which damages the skin and leaves scars. Acne cosmetica occurs when oil-based makeup blocks pores.

Then there’s acne mechanica, which develops when skin is irritated by friction, pressure or sweat. This type can affect athletes wearing tight sportswear, backpacks or helmet straps for long periods. Another curious example is “fiddler’s neck”, where violinists develop spots where the instrument rests recurrently on the chin.

A persistent myth is that acne results from poor hygiene. It’s an understandable assumption given that bacteria play a role, but it’s wrong. Acne doesn’t develop because the skin is dirty, and excessive washing or scrubbing can actually make it worse by irritating already sensitive areas.

Treatment

Treating acne can be challenging. There’s no single cure, but there are many ways to reduce how often it appears and how severe it becomes.

Some simple lifestyle changes can help. For instance, it’s best to avoid heavy, oil-based or fragranced products, as perfumes and strong additives can irritate sensitive skin and worsen inflammation. Products labelled “non-comedogenic” are formulated not to block pores, helping to prevent new breakouts.

Diet remains a controversial topic, but some evidence suggests that reducing sugar and processed foods while eating more fruit, vegetables and whole grains may be beneficial for reducing acne.

If these measures don’t help, topical medications are usually the next step. These include retinoids, which are derived from vitamin A and help calm inflammation, reduce oil production and prevent pores from becoming blocked.

Topical antibiotics can reduce the bacteria and inflammation that drive acne, and are often combined with benzoyl peroxide, which unclogs pores and acts as an antiseptic. However, benzoyl peroxide is also a bleaching agent, so it’s best to avoid contact with your favourite pillowcases or nightwear.

If topical treatments don’t work, oral antibiotics may be prescribed. Patience is important here: acne therapies often take six-to-eight weeks to show improvement.

For severe cases, dermatologists can prescribe oral retinoids (Roaccutane). These powerful medications can have serious side-effects and require close monitoring. As retinoids and some antibiotics are harmful to a developing baby, they are unsuitable during pregnancy.

Acne is far more than a cosmetic issue. It can cause lasting physical marks and have a profound psychological impact. Many people with acne experience low confidence, anxiety or depression. For some, mental health support is just as important as medication.

If your acne is getting worse or affecting your wellbeing, it’s important to see a doctor. Acne is common, but that doesn’t make it trivial. With the right treatment plan, and a little persistence, it can usually be brought under control.

Dan Baumgardt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Acne: a GP’s guide to understanding and managing it – https://theconversation.com/acne-a-gps-guide-to-understanding-and-managing-it-266652