TanToday - Tanning Salon Business Forum - News About Tanning

Nice Write Up About Dr. Garland in Wash Post

dcjjp1 — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:07:41 GMT

Melanoma caused by "Genetic Mutation"

Jb2rice — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:32:29 GMT

I heard this on GMA last week, the article talks about how a genetic mutation cause melanoma in the first place.

Skin Cancer Breakthrough: Targeted Drug Treats Advanced-Stage Melanoma - ABC News

Bad public service announcement by AAD

esun — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:47:05 GMT

This was on TV yesterday morning on either NECN or HN. The one minute version...
Still using the 75% figure to scare people. Someone should do something .
Public Service Advertisements
The DANGERS of Tanning.

Should be called the dangerous lies about tanning.

Class action suit?

Analysis Finds Sunscreens Containing Retinyl Palmitate Do Not Cause Skin Cancer

esun — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:40:56 GMT

Analysis Finds Sunscreens Containing Retinyl Palmitate Do Not Cause Skin Cancer

Findings refute earlier health warning issued by the Environmental Working Group
SCHAUMBURG, ILL. (Aug 10, 2010) � Despite previous concerns about the cancer-causing potential of sunscreens containing retinyl palmitate (vitamin A), an independent analysis published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (JAAD) determined that there is no evidence that the inclusion of retinyl palmitate in sunscreens can cause cancer in humans.

�Earlier this year, the Environmental Working Group issued a health warning that sunscreens containing retinyl palmitate could pose a cancer risk,� said dermatologist Henry W. Lim, MD, FAAD, chairman of the department of dermatology at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit. �This warning garnered significant media attention and caused considerable confusion among the public. Our report should help dismiss the misinformation that sunscreens are not safe, as sunscreens are vitally important in reducing your risk for skin cancer, not causing it.�

Retinyl palmitate is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in over-the-counter and prescription drugs, and it is also used as a food additive (e.g., to fortify low-fat milk, dairy products and breakfast cereals with vitamin A). When used in sunscreen, retinyl palmitate is not an active drug ingredient (unlike sunscreen filters), but rather a cosmetic ingredient. In sunscreen, it can serve as an antioxidant to improve product performance against the aging effects of UV exposure or to enhance the aesthetic qualities of sunscreen.

In the commentary published in JAAD entitled �Safety of retinyl palmitate in sunscreens: A critical analysis,� lead investigator and dermatologist Steven Q. Wang, MD, FAAD, director of dermatologic surgery at Memorial-Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, explains that although retinyl palmitate was selected for testing by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), mere selection does not mean that the chosen compounds are dangerous or unsafe. He explained that retinyl palmitate was mainly selected because of its widespread use in cosmetic and sunscreen products. Many common ingredients, such as aloe vera, nanoscale titanium dioxide, and zinc oxide are currently under review by the NTP.

One of the primary concerns about retinyl palmitate cited by the Environmental Working Group in its annual sunscreen report is that when the compound is exposed to ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation, it can result in the generation of oxygen radicals, or free radicals. Since 2002, there have been eight in vitro (test tube) studies using mouse lymphoma cell and human skin Jurkat T-cell cultures demonstrating that retinyl palmitate can produce free radicals, which can disrupt cell function.

�Despite the concerns raised by these non-human studies, retinyl palmitate operates within the skin as only one component of a complex antioxidant network,� said Dr. Wang . �For example, when a sunscreen with retinyl palmitate is applied to the skin, a number of antioxidants work together to alleviate the risk of free radical formation seen in these in vitro experiments. If studied on its own � outside of this environment � its antioxidant properties can rapidly be exhausted, allowing the production of oxygen radicals. In these non-human studies, retinyl palmitate was the only compound studied � making the biological relevance of these findings to humans unclear.�

In addition, a large animal study testing whether hairless and albino mice developed tumors sooner when coated in retinyl palmitate versus a placebo cream was conducted by the NTP. At this time, the findings have not been published in peer-reviewed literature. After critically analyzing the available data, Dr. Wang and his team of investigators determined that there is no conclusive evidence to indicate the combination of retinyl palmitate and UV radiation causes increased rates of skin cancer.

�It is important to note that the mice in the NTP study are highly susceptible to the effects of UV radiation and can develop skin cancer or other skin abnormalities within weeks of UV exposure, even in the absence of retinyl palmitate,� said Dr. Wang. �That is why extreme caution is needed when extrapolating these animal study results to humans.�

Although there are no published human studies on the potential of retinyl palmitate or other retinoids to cause cancer, the commentary concludes that observations from decades of clinical practice do not support the notion that retinyl palmitate in sunscreen causes or promotes skin cancer. First, dermatologists routinely prescribe various forms of topical and oral retinoids to treat a number of skin conditions (e.g., acne, psoriasis and photoaging). Dr. Wang explained that there is no published evidence to suggest that topical or oral retinoids increase the risk of skin cancer in these patients. He added that oral retinoids (e.g., acitretin) also are used to prevent skin cancers in high-risk individuals, such as organ transplant patients.

�Based on the current available data from in vitro, animal and human studies, there is no convincing evidence to support the notion that retinyl palmitate in sunscreens causes cancer,� said Dr. Wang. �On the contrary, years of research suggests that retinoids are helpful in reducing your risk for skin cancer. The bottom line is that people should continue vigilantly using sunscreens along with other sun-safe practices � such as limiting sun exposure, seeking shade, and wearing sun-protective clothing, hats and sunglasses � to reduce the risk of skin cancer and premature aging.�

Headquartered in Schaumburg, Ill., the American Academy of Dermatology (Academy), founded in 1938, is the largest, most influential, and most representative of all dermatologic associations. With a membership of more than 16,000 physicians worldwide, the Academy is committed to: advancing the diagnosis and medical, surgical and cosmetic treatment of the skin, hair and nails; advocating high standards in clinical practice, education, and research in dermatology; and supporting and enhancing patient care for a lifetime of healthier skin, hair and nails. For more information, contact the Academy at 1-888-462-DERM (3376) or www.aad.org.

Editor's Note: The Environmental Working Group is a non-profit, non-governmental organization based in Washington, D.C.

THIS IS HUGE! Vitamin D found to influence over 200 genes

eileen — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:26:18 GMT

Vitamin D found to influence over 200 genes, highlighting links to disease
August 23, 2010 The extent to which vitamin D deficiency may increase susceptibility to a wide range of diseases is dramatically highlighted in research published today. Scientists have mapped the points at which vitamin D interacts with our DNA - and identified over two hundred genes that it directly influences. The results are published today in the journal Genome Research.

Vitamin D status is potentially one of the most powerful selective pressures on the genome in relatively recent times," says Professor George Ebers, Action Medical Research Professor of Clinical Neurology and one of the senior authors of the paper. "Our study appears to support this interpretation and it may be we have not had enough time to make all the adaptations we have needed to cope with our northern circumstances."

SOURCE LINK & FULL STORY: Vitamin D found to influence over 200 genes, highlighting links to disease

here's a little good news

trackerbuddy — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 01:58:09 GMT

Sunlight, healthy vice #9 right above alcohol
America's healthiest pleasures: 10 'vices' that are good for you - CNN.com

Great press release today.

dcjjp1 — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:32:14 GMT

NewsMaker - Sun is not bad for skin after all

Big bucks to brainwash teens against tanning...from the Johnson City Press

solman — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:15:06 GMT

JohnsonCityPress.com - Local News - Johnson City, TN

Not really news from ABC.com...

solman — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:10:42 GMT

How nice that Showtimes' new show "The Big C" writers choose melanoma:

Showtime's 'The Big C' Treats Cancer As Comedy - ABC News

Gauging Interest in a SunlightTruth.com quarterly publication

kpowr82 — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:54:36 GMT

Okay, so as a co creator of sunlighttruth.com, I've been giving some thought to a quarterly publication that can be distributed to salons FOR CLIENT CONSUMPTION. I think a professional looking publication will do a better job spreading the positive UV word. Naturally, I don't have any advertisers for this type of publication.

I've asked a print company to quote a price for such a publication and this is what I've come up with:

20 page booklet with full color, glossy 100lb paper, 8.5" x 5.5" cost approx $1675 for 5000 copies. 1000 copies would cost approx $785.

I'd be designing and laying out these booklets in my spare time using articles found on sunlighttruth.com so it may be a month into the future before I could have a proof ready for interested parties to review.

Ultimately what I would like to do is see if I can get xx number of salons to each purchase 100 copies of this publication at the best price I can possibly negotiate to make this easier to swallow.

For example, if we could get 50 salons to commit to purchasing 100 copies each, it would only cost each salon $33.50 <-- that's my raw cost for printing alone. I'd be donating my time (yet again) for free if we can make this happen.

What do you all think? Any sponsors out there willing to make this happen on a larger scale?

Good read about dermos

thetanman1957 — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:18:59 GMT

Good article to post everywhere we can. You may have already seen it. I just read it for the first time. Harmon Leon: Is Profit Behind Dermatology's 'Sun Scare' Message?

Melonoma Panic-All a Terrible Mistake

JAMAICA — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:27:53 GMT

Reposting this as it is one of the best sunscare repudiation articles I have seen.The author is a Professor of Dermatology at Newcastle University in UK.
The melanoma epidemic? Don't panic... it's all a terrible mistake | Mail Online

From our freinds in europe

uv2021 — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:12:17 GMT

Also from the JTCA

Aug 4th 2010

Their task is to improve our health – but how can we trust them after this? WHO

Their task is to improve our health – but how can we trust them after this?

According to their Home-page on Internet, “WHO [World Health Organization] is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends.”

Yet recently we have seen one clear example, and further down you will see another one, of how WHO’s recommendation might not be based on what is best for the health of the world’s population but rather on what is best for some pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

The “Swine Flu pandemic”.

A new report, published in British Medical Journal, reveals that the top scientists, who convinced the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare H1N1 a global pandemic, held close financial ties to the drug companies that profited from the sale of those vaccines. This report exposes the hidden ties that drove WHO to declare a pandemic, resulting in billions of dollars in profits for vaccine manufacturers.

The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, who is preparing their own report on WHO’s “Swine Flu” recommendations, is criticizing WHO, saying: “Parliamentary Assembly is alarmed about the way in which the H1N1 influenza pandemic has been handled, not only by the World Health Organization (WHO), but also by the competent health authorities at the level of the European Union and at national level.” It went on to explain that WHO’s actions led to “a waste of large sums of public money, and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks faced by the European public at large.”

Now, let’s connect those strong indications of non-transparent habits in WHO, with their recent (Fact sheet N�287 Interim revision April 2010 “Sunbeds, tanning and UV exposure”) recommendations for use of tanning beds.

The developing scandal around the L’Oreal family fortune where the dirty laundry of the world’s largest cosmetic company is being washed publicly in courts in France has proved that L’Oreal is no stranger to the habit of “influencing” officials to do their biddings. And I am going to, if not prove, at least give some very clear evidence of their possibility to “assist” WHO in their work while creating a multi-billion dollar market for L’Oreal’s (and all their other cosmetic brand’s) sun-protection lotions.

The numbers behind the names below refers to the numbers in the picture.

The successful “black” campaign against tanning (indoors in solarium as well as outdoors under the open sun) is powered by reports from mainly three groups – the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) organized under WHO, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and European Society for Skin Cancer Prevention (EUROSKIN).

So let’s look a little bit closer on each of those organizations and from where their leading participants get their funding.

As presented in my previous post “The most successful “black marketing” campaign in the world?” L’Oreal Recherch� was funding the “research” made by Ad�le Green1), Chairman of IARC at the time (2006) when their report about tanning beds classification as ”carcinogenic to humans” was presented.

A quick Google-search shows that J.P. C�sarini2), one of the scientific chairmen of ICNIRP, is affiliated with “Fondation De Rothschild” whose director, Jean-Pierre Meyers3), also happens to be the Vice-President of L’Oreal and married to Fran�oise Bettencourt-Meyers4), the daughter of “the richest woman in France”, Liliane Bettencourt5), “Madame L’Oreal” herself. C�sarini is by the way also connected to INSERM (see below) through his research at “Laboratoire de Recherche sur les Tumeurs de la Peau Humaine”.

Just to make things worse, the ex. president-founder and now chairman emeritus of ICNIRP, Michael Repacholi6) from Australia, has a reputation from his work for WHO on EMF (Electro Magnetic Field) from radio-transmitters, as being a corrupt consultant doing the dirty liaison between commercial interests and WHO (http://www.iddd.de/umtsno/puzmud.htm)

Some additional “googling” reveals that the third organization mentioned in WHO’s recommendations, EUROSKIN, based in Germany, is founded (and funded) by a huge organization in France covering almost every aspect of French medicine – INSERM (Institut national de la sant� et de la recherch� m�dicale). This sounds innocent enough until we see that one of the sponsors (and probably not the smallest!) of INSERM is “Foundation Bettencourt Schueller” the private foundation of Liliane Bettencourt in which Jean-Pierre Meyers also is a director. The first Chairman in EUROSKIN, Jean Fran�ois Dor�7), came from the INSERM headquarters in Lyon and the new chairman, Mathieu Boniol8 ), also from INSERM, is the statistician contributing the statistical data behind IARC’s flawed report from last year.

Common for all reports is, in addition to the witch-hunt on tanners but not surprisingly when taking into account that the authors were paid by L’Oreal, the blatant promotion of sun-protection lotions.

So we have now two striking examples on how an organization like WHO can be used as a vehicle for commercial interests that goes in opposite direction of what is WHO’s (declared) purpose.

And most governments are following the recommendations from WHO like sheep in a herd without applying their own basic research or even common sense to their decisions.

According to my knowledge only two governments in Europe have had the civil courage to speak up against WHO.

I am thinking about the Polish Minister of Health that managed to save billions of Polish tax-payers money by preventing Poland from buying the “swine-flu” vaccine recommended by WHO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhZesZe33cw

And the second case is the Dutch government that opposed the WHO recommendation on tanning beds (see my earlier post “THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD OF THE DUTCH HEALTH COUNCIL CRITICIZES THE INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER (IARC)” (http://thetanningguru.com/dutch-health-council-criticizes-iarc )

All reports and WHO recommendation are based on old information and new research is not taken into account

Just like the IARC-report from July 2009, all references in the ICNIRP-report from 2003 are from research-reports from before year 2000 (actually most of the references are the same!). Nothing is said about the tremendous amount of research made during the last ten years showing that the benefits from UVB-radiation outweigh the risks up to a factor 1 to 1,000 or even more according to some experts.

The few sentences in the WHO recommendation that refers to the health benefits of tanning are so far from anything else presented in recent reports, so it would be ridiculously funny if the matter wasn’t that serious.

For example:

“While sunbed use may increase vitamin D synthesis, predominantly from the UVB component, for the majority of the population, incidental exposure to the sun, combined with normal dietary intake of vitamin D, provides adequate vitamin D for a healthy body throughout the year. If people require more vitamin D than the sun can provide (for example, because of living in polar regions) this should be supplemented through diet rather than sunbed use.”

This is written in a recommendation to the world’s governments at a time when almost 100% consensus exists about the fact that UVB rays are the only natural and safe way for the body to create Vitamin-D. The best proof of that Vitamin-D never was intended for oral intake lays probably in mother’s milk that contains all vitamins and other nourishment for a child except Vitamin-D. Also it has been measured in several researches that UVB-rays reach the earth only a cloudless (and pollution-fee) day while the sun is above a 50⁰ angle above the horizon, and that is definitely not only in “polar regions”. For more details on this, see my post: http://thetanningguru.com/do-you-know-how-to-tan#more-580

Would you buy a mobile telephone that is made today based on more than 10 year old technology? Probably not, but most of the world’s governments are doing just the same thing when they adopt laws and regulation based upon WHO’s recent recommendations.

Professor Johan Moan, Senior Researcher Radium hospitalet in Oslo, Norway, one of the world’s most recognized experts on the benefits of Vitamin-D, says like this in his letter to the Norwegian health authorities on 12.11.09 (translated from Norwegian)

“Research has changed my view on sun beds. With the knowledge we possessed in the 90s, an age restriction would be reasonable to consider, but with the knowledge we have today, an age restriction seems very unfortunate. Technological development of the sun beds combined with Norwegian rules have made the radiation from them much weaker today than they were during the 90s, and much weaker than many other countries. The danger of getting a sunburn has thus been dramatically reduced. I think the Health Directorate should focus on spreading information to make sure Norwegians show common sense when exposing themselves to the sun. The sun is good for your health in moderate doses, and if you avoid getting a sunburn, then exposure both outdoors and in sun beds will be good for you, no matter how old you are. One should also take into consideration that the number of people under 40 with malignant skin cancer has gone down since 1990, while the number of people using sun beds has increased.”

Norway has not implemented any 18-years limit for tanning in solarium and neither has the Netherlands and most other countries in the world.

The picture below describes the possible ways for L’Oreal to influence the process in WHO in order to maintain a multi-billion dollar market for sun-protection lotions, a market that hardly existed 20 years ago.

The ways for L’Oreal to influence the recommendations from WHO in order to make billions on sale of sun-protection and “fake-tan” lotions.

Links:

http://www.who.int/about/en/

http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc10/edoc12283.htm

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jun03_4/c2912

http://www.icnirp.de/commission.htm

http://www.inserm.fr/partenaires

http://www.euroskin.eu/about/board-of-directors/index.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2363574/

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=937791&ticker=OR:FP&previousCa pId=874249&previousTitle=L’OREAL

http://www.fondation-de-rothschild.fr/spip.php?rubrique1

Melanoma fraud part 2

uv2021 — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:56:04 GMT

From the JTCA

Aug 5th 2010

Exposing the Sunlight/Melanoma Fraud: Part 2

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Exposing the Sunlight/Melanoma Fraud: Part 2

--
Is the purported increase in melanoma a fraud?

In the last post, I made a case that sunlight does not cause melanoma, and that if Melanoma is increasing, as stated by the Melanoma International Foundation (MIF), it is doing so while sunlight exposure is decreasing. But suppose that the increase in melanoma is not an increase at all? Some believe that there is no proliferation of melanoma, but only a proliferation of dermatologists, and a proliferation of diagnoses of skin spots as being melanoma by some dermatologists in an attempt to make more money. An article by Harmon Leon,[1] writing for the Huffington Post, served as a reminder of the potential for fraud among (unscrupulous) dermatologists. I strongly suggest you read that article. I am indebted to Mr. Leon for a few of the points made in this post.

I do not mean to suggest that all dermatologists are dishonest. Many of the facts that I gather are derived from research performed by dermatologists who are trying to awaken the public to the fraudulent actions of some members of their profession.

Those who profit from scare tactics regarding melanoma I call The Powers of Darkness. They have frightened us away from the sunlight, or as Dr. Michael Holick (an honest dermatologist) says, �scared the daylights out of us to scare us out of the daylight.� The consequence is widespread vitamin D deficiency that has led to millions of cases of death and disability.
Dr. Arthur Rhodes, a dermatologist, wrote in a 2003 editorial for an independent dermatology newspaper[2] that melanoma�s public message�that sunlight was the sole cause of melanoma�was causing death among patients and medical professionals alike. In it he suggested that many people were not taking care of melanomas that occurred in areas of little or no sunlight exposure; this was because they assumed that only sunlight could cause melanoma. The following are some of the examples that he gathered from his experience with this most deadly of skin cancers:

1. A dermatology trainee died of melanoma at age 28. He watched a mole change in his armpit for years, but because that area never received UV light, he assumed it was not melanoma and delayed seeking help.
2. A 40-year-old woman had a sore on the bottom of her heel and believing only sunlight caused melanoma, she had no idea that it was melanoma. She died three years later.
3. A Harvard-trained lung specialist ignored a sore on his upper back. He and his fianc�e, a Harvard-trained pediatric resident, observed the change for several years without having it examined. They didn�t know that melanoma could occur in an area that never received sunlight. He died six months after diagnosis at age 29.

Here is a quote from this enlightened dermatologist:
�If a medical resident can misinterpret public health messages about sun exposure and melanoma, and two Harvard-trained physicians were ignorant about the most important risk factors for developing melanoma, then the general public will tend to make the same potentially fatal mistakes. Those mistakes lead to delayed diagnosis of this potentially lethal cancer�particularly when we pound out the message that the culprit in melanoma is sun, sun, sun, and we are not sufficiently emphasizing the most important risk factors for developing melanoma.�

Dr. Rhodes states that �melanoma is a heterogeneous disease with multiple causes, arising from potential precursor moles that have little or nothing to do with sun exposure [emphasis mine], including dysplastic nevi, congenital nevi, and abnormal moles on acral surfaces and mucous membranes.�

Another celebrated dermatologist, Dr. Bernard Ackerman, wrote a meticulously documented 440 page monograph called The Sun and the �Epidemic� of Melanoma: Myth on Myth.[3] In it he presents nearly every piece of research regarding sunlight and melanoma up until 2008, and concludes that the purported "epidemic" of sunlight-caused melanoma is a myth.

I agree with these dermatologists. The �epidemic� of melanoma is a myth, and dermatologists themselves are paying a price. Their own sunlight avoidance is causing widespread vitamin D deficiency among members of their profession. Australian dermatologists, while living in one of the sunniest areas of the world, have an average blood-vitamin D level of only 13 ng/ml�a level considered to be severely deficient.[4] At least this group is following their own advice to avoid the sun. As you will see, not all dermatologists are following their own advice�especially those in the USA.

There are still other dermatologists who refuse to sing in the official choir of the Powers of Darkness. Writing in the British Medical Journal in 2008, Dr. Sam Shuster argued that the purported increase in melanoma is not really an increase at all, but an artifact due to non-melanoma lesions being diagnosed as melanoma.[5] In 2009, another study by dermatologists� Dr. Nick Levell and his colleagues, including Shuster�this time published by the British Journal of Dermatology, came to a similar conclusion and called the �increase� in melanoma a �midsummer night�s dream.�[6] They concluded, after tracking the reported increase in Melanoma in the Eastern region of the UK between 1991 and 2004, that benign lesions were being classified in increasing numbers as stage-one melanoma. No other stages of the disease increased, and the increase in mortality due to melanoma was either miniscule or non-existent. This was true even though all grades of tumors were diagnosed at first presentation. They also noted that �the distribution of the lesions reported did not correspond to the sites of lesions caused by solar exposure,��in other words, the �cancers� were occurring on areas of the body seldom exposed to sunlight. Levell and his group also say that �the large increase in reported incidence is likely to be due to diagnostic drift which classifies benign lesions as stage 1 melanoma.�

They further stated that �These findings inevitably challenge the validity of epidemiology studies linking increasing melanoma incidence with UV radiation, and suggest the need for a search for other ways in which the disease may be caused.�

Dr. Ackerman agreed. In his meticulously documented monograph, he notes that �researchers have created an epidemic of melanoma when, in fact, the only change has been an �epidemic� in diagnoses of melanoma.�

Notwithstanding the research presented by these dermatologists, the American Academy of Dermatology (AADA) and other melanoma organizations continue to spread misinformation regarding the disease. Dr. William James, president of the AAD has said that melanoma has become the most common form of cancer for young adults 25-29 years old, testifying to that statement before the FDA.[7] Yet, he did not mention data from the National Cancer Institute indicating that death due to melanoma has decreased by 50% among women of ages 20-49 since 1975.[8] That means young women have less than one chance in 100,000 of dying from melanoma, which does not even place it in the top 15 causes of cancer death.[9] And, the American Cancer Society states that �since 2000 melanoma has been decreasing rapidly in whites younger than 50, by 3% per year in men since 1991 and by 2.3% per year since 1995 in women.� We might ask why these figures are not included in the statements by dermatologists regarding the �epidemic� of melanoma. Could it be because of a cozy financial relationship with pharmaceutical companies that produce sunscreen?[10]

Harmon Leon gave another reason to question the �epidemic� of melanoma: The USA has 4.5% of the world�s population, yet has 52% of the world�s melanoma. The American Cancer Society estimates 68,720 new melanomas in the US during 2009,[11] whereas the World Health Organization estimates 132,000 new cases yearly worldwide.[12] Something is very strange here. It certainly seems that the exceptionally high melanoma figures in the USA might be doctored to produce sunscreen sales, dermatology visits and the removal of benign leisions. If you want to read about how this is done, click on this link. http://www.cnbc.com/id/27087326
In addition, Dr. Ackerman points out the following in his monograph:

1. The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), the Skin Cancer Foundation and the American Cancer Society sold their seals of recognition to manufacturers of sunscreens, based on research conducted solely by the sunscreen industry. The price, he says, was �substantial in terms of dollars but incalculable in terms of honor.� For instance, for an application of $10,000 and an annual fee of 5,000, sunscreen manufacturers may boast approval of their products in the form of the �Seal of Recognition� of the American Academy of Dermatology. They then display this seal on the front of their tubes. The American Cancer Society allows its logo to be placed on tubes of Neutrogena sunscreens in exchange for $300,000 annually.
2. In 2007, the year in which the Seal of Recognition program for the AAD was implemented, the past president of the board, who chaired the Seal program, and half the members of the board had financial ties to companies that manufacture sunscreen. And in 2008, all four new members of the board had those ties.
3. Darrell Rigel, a former president of the AAD, affirmed how important it was to avoid the sun while he, himself, was on vacation in Hawaii.
4. The AAD ran announcements for and updates on their scientific meetings, stating that they took place in �Sunny San Diego� and �Sunny San Antonio.� [Aren�t they supposed to avoid the sunlight?]

We now have two possibilities (see parts 1 and 2 of this post). (1.) Either melanoma has increased exponentially while sunlight exposure dramatically decreased or (2.) There has been no increase in melanoma; the purported increase is nothing more than an increase in the number of harmless skin spots that are being diagnosed as melanoma by an increasing number of dermatologists. In either case, the idea that regular, non-burning sunlight exposure is the cause of melanoma is a fraud�an idea promulgated by dermatological academies, sunscreen manufacturers and melanoma foundations driven by the desire for profit.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harmon-leon/is-profit-behind-dermatol_b_640929.html
[2] Rhodes, A. Melanoma�s Public Message. Skin & Allergy News 2003;34 (4):1-4
[3] Ackerman, B. The Sun and the �Epidemic� of Melanoma: Myth on Myth. Ardor Scribendi, New York 2008.
[4] D. Czarnecki, C. J. Meehan and F. Bruce. The vitamin D status of Australian dermatologists. Clinical and Experimental Dermatology 2009;34, 624�25.
[5] Shuster, S. Is sun exposure a major cause of melanoma? No. BMJ 2008;337:a764
[6] N.J. Levell, C.C. Beattie, S. Shuster and D.C. Greenberg. Melanoma epidemic: a midsummer night�s dream? British J Dermatol 2009;161:630�34
[7] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-academy-of-dermatology-association-testifies-at-fda-hearing-on-indoor-tanning-devices-89119047.html
[8] Age-adjusted mortality rates by Cancer site, Ages 20-49, White, Female 1975-2007. National Center for Health Statistics, Center for Disease Control, April 10, 2010. National Cancer institute.
[9] http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/59/4/225/TBL6
[10] http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4393/is_3_39/ai_n29418761/
[11] American Cancer Society Cancer reference Information 2009. http://nccu.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_melanom a_50.asp?sitearea=
[12] http://www.who.int/uv/faq/skincancer/en/index1.html Posted by Dr. Marc Sorenson at 8:32 PM Labels: dermatologist, dermatology, sunlight, sunlight deprivation, sunscreens, vitamin D

melanoma fraud part 1

uv2021 — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:48:58 GMT

From the JCTA

Aug 5th 2010

Exposing the Sunlight/Melanoma Fraud: Part 1

Friday, July 30, 2010

Exposing the Sunlight/Melanoma Fraud: Part 1

-
For the purposes of this article, we discuss regular, non-burning exposure to sunlight--the type of sunlight that slowly produces a tan--and the type of sunlight exposure that can save your life. Never, ever burn yourself in the sunlight. See your medical professional before making any changes in your sunlight habits.

Is melanoma caused by regular sunlight exposure, or are we being defrauded?

The Melanoma International Foundation (MIF), is one the Powers of Darkness--organizations that would have us all become vitamin D deficient and ill by avoiding the healing sun. They, like many other sun phobes, believe that sunlight should be shunned as a detriment to human healthand that “90% or more of melanoma is caused by ultraviolet radiation either from the sun or tanning salons."[ii] The MIF states that “Melanoma is epidemic: rising faster than any other cancer and projected to affect one person in 50 by 2010, currently it affects 1 in 75. In 1935, only one in 1,500 was struck by the disease.” In other words, they say there has been a 3,000% increase in melanoma since 1935. If true, then their statement that sunlight is the cause of melanoma flies in the face of reason. Consider the following:

1. If melanoma has indeed increased exponentially since 1935, and that increase is due to sunlight exposure, then sunlight exposure must also have shown a parallel or at least significant increase in that time. To determine whether that has happened, I analyzed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, (BLS) to determine if there was an increase or decrease in human sunlight exposure during the years from 1910 to 2,000.[iii] I paid special attention to the changes since 1935, the year the MIF used as a baseline for measuring increases in melanoma incidence. The data showed that indoor occupations grew from one-quarter to three-quarters of total employment between 1910 and 2000, and that during the same period, the outdoor occupation of farming declined from 33% to 1.2% of total employment, a 96% reduction. The data also show that approximately 66% of the decline in the occupation of farmers and 50% of the decline in the occupation of farm laborers occurred after 1935.

Further information from the EPA determined that as of 1986, about 5 percent of adult men worked mostly outdoors, and that about 10 percent worked outside part of the time. The proportion of women who worked outside was thought to be lower. [iv]

This material demonstrates a dramatic shift from outdoor, sunlight-exposed activity to indoor, non-sunlight-exposed activity during the 20th Century, including 1935, the MIF-baseline year. According to these facts, if there is a relationship between sunlight exposure and melanoma, the relationship is inverse—the greater the exposure to sunlight, the less is the risk of melanoma.

It has been theorized that the answer to the statement above, is that a decreasing thickness of the ozone layer (allowing more intense sunlight exposure) is responsible for the increasing incidence of melanoma. However, research by Moan and Dahlback in Norway reported that yearly melanoma incidence increased 350% in men and 440% in women between 1957 and 1984—a period when there was absolutely no thinning of the ozone layer.[v]

2. If melanoma is increasing due to increased exposure to sunlight, it is clear that outdoor workers, being exposed to far more sunlight, would also have far more melanoma. Nevertheless, Godar, et al.[vi] present evidence that outdoor workers, while receiving 3-9 times the UVR exposure as indoor workers,[vii][viii] have had no increase in melanoma since before 1940, whereas melanoma incidence in indoor workers has increased steadily and exponentially. Many other studies corroborate the Godar findings that outdoor workers have fewer melanomas than indoor workers.[ix] [x] [xi] [xii] [xiii] [xiv] [xv] [xvi] [xvii] [xviii] [xix] [xx] [xxi] [xxii] [xxiii] [xxiv]

I repeat: the greater the exposure to sunlight, the less is the risk of melanoma.

3. If sunlight exposure is the reason for the increase in melanoma, we would expect that areas of the body that receive the most exposure would also be the areas of greatest occurrence of the disease. This is not the case. Research by Garland, et al.,[xxv] assessing the incidence of melanoma occurring at various body sites, found higher rates on the trunk (seldom exposed to sunlight) than on the head and arms (commonly exposed to sunlight). Others have shown that melanoma in women occur primarily on the upper legs, and in men more frequently on the back—areas of little sunlight exposure.[xxvi] In African Americans, melanoma is more common on the soles of the feet and on the lower legs, where exposure to sunlight is almost non-existent.[xxvii]

Again: the greater the exposure to sunlight, the less is the risk of melanoma. How, then can sunlight cause melanoma? Keep in mind that sunscreen use has increased dramatically in the last four decades, paralleling the increase in melanoma. Sunscreens are meant to block sunlight, no? This is one more indication that melanoma risk is increased by sunlight deficiency.

4. A question: If melanoma is caused by sunlight exposure, why do melanomas occur on areas that seldom or never receive sunlight exposure—areas such as inside the mouth,[xxviii] on sexual organs[xxix] and armpits?[xxx]

Mull over this information and you will see that the promoting of sunlight as the cause of melanoma is the promoting of a fraud—a fraud that is creating death and destruction due to vitamin D deficiency, which correlates to more than 100 serious diseases and disorders (see my book for documentation). The Powers of Darkness will continue spreading falsehoods about sunlight and melanoma until the truth is brought forth. Join the sunshine movement and help to spread truth and light. And remember: when you enjoy the sunlight, be sure never to burn.

Be sure to look for Part 2 in my next blog. Perhaps the biggest fraud of all is that some dermatologists are diagnosing harmless skin spots as melanoma--a means to defraud insurance companies and increase profits. We will also show that melanoma incidence may not be increasing at all. Stay tuned. The next blog will provide information from enlightened dermatologists who believe that their own profession is misleading the public!

Melanoma International Foundation, 2007 Facts about melanoma.
[ii] Melanoma International Foundation, 2007 Facts about melanoma.
[iii] Ian D. Wyatt and Daniel E. Hecker. Occupational changes in the 20th century. Monthly Labor Review, March 2006 pp 35-57: Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections, Bureau of Labor Statistics
[iv] U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Catching Our Breath: Next Steps for Reducing Urban Ozone, OTA-O-412 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1989).
[v] J. Moan and A. Dahlback. The relationship between skin cancers, solar radiation and ozone depletion. Br J Cancer 1992; 65: 916–21
[vi] Godar DE, Landry RJ, Lucas AD. Increased UVA exposures and decreased cutaneous Vitamin D3 levels may be responsible for the increasing incidence of melanoma. Med hypothesis (2009), doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2008.09.056
[vii] Godar D. UV doses worldwide. Photochem Photobiol 2005;81:736–49.
[viii] Thieden E, Philipsen PA, Sandby-M�ller J, Wulf HC. UV radiation exposure related to age, sex, occupation, and sun behavior based on time-stamped personal dosimeter readings. Arch Dermatol 2004;140:197–203.
[ix] Lee J. Melanoma and exposure to sunlight. Epidemiol Rev 1982;4:110–36.
[x] V�gero D, Ringb�ck G, Kiviranta H. Melanoma and other tumors of the skin among office, other indoor and outdoor workers in Sweden 1961–1979 Brit J Cancer 1986;53:507–12.
[xi] Kennedy C, Bajdik CD, Willemze R, De Gruijl FR, Bouwes Bavinck JN; Leiden Skin Cancer Study. The influence of painful sunburns and lifetime sun exposure on the risk of actinic keratoses, seborrheic warts, melanocytic nevi, atypical nevi, and skin cancer. Invest Dermatol 2003;120:1087–93.
[xii] Garland FC, White MR, Garland CF, Shaw E, Gorham ED. Occupational sunlight exposure and melanoma in the USA Navy. Arch Environ Health 1990; 45:261-67.
[xiii] Kaskel P, Sander S, Kron M, Kind P, Peter RU, Kr�hn G. Outdoor activities in childhood: a protective factor for cutaneous melanoma? Results of a case-control study in 271 matched pairs. Br J Dermatol 2001;145:602-09.
[xiv] Garsaud P, Boisseau-Garsaud AM, Ossondo M, Azaloux H, Escanmant P, Le Mab G. Epidemiology of cutaneous melanoma in the French West Indies (Martinique). Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:66-8.
[xv] Le Marchand l, Saltzman S, Hankin JH, Wilkens LR, Franke SJM, Kolonel N. Sun exposure, diet and melanoma in Hawaii Caucasians. Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:232-45.
[xvi] Armstong K, Kricker A. The epidemiology of UV induced skin cancer. J Photochem Biol 2001;63:8-18
[xvii] Crombie IK. Distribution of malignant melanoma on the body surface. Br J Cancer 1981;43:842-9.
[xviii] Crombie IK. Variation of melanoma incidence with latitude in North America and Europe. Br J Cancer 1979;40:774-81.
[xix]Weinstock MA, Colditz,BA, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ. Bronstein, BR, Speizer FE. Nonfamilial cutaneous melanoma incidence in women associated with sun exposure before 20 years of age. Pediatrics 1989;84:199-204.
[xx] Tucker MA, Goldstein AM. Melanoma etiology: where are we? Oncogene 20f03;22:3042-52.
[xxi] Berwick M, Armstrong BK, Ben-Porat L, Fine J, Kricker A, Eberle C. Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma. J Nat Cancer Inst 2005;97:95-199.
[xxii] Veier�d MB, Weiderpass E, Th�rn M, Hansson J, Lund E, Armstrong B. A prospective study of pigmentation, sun exposure, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:1530-8.
[xxiii] Oliveria SA, Saraiya M, Geller AC, Heneghan MK, Jorgensen C. Sun exposure and risk of melanoma. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:131-8.
[xxiv] Elwood JM, Gallagher RP, Hill GB, Pearson JCG. Cutaneous melanoma in relation to intermittent and constant sun exposure—the western Canada melanoma study. Int J Cancer 2006;35:427-33
[xxv] Garland FC, White MR, Garland CF, Shaw E, Gorham ED. Occupational sunlight exposure and melanoma in the USA Navy. Arch Environ Health 1990; 45:261-67.
[xxvi] Rivers, J. Is there more than one road to melanoma? Lancet 2004;363:728-30.
[xxvii] Crombie, I. Racial differences in melanoma incidence. Br J Cancer 1979;40:185-93.
[xxviii] Burgess, A. et al. Parotidectomy: preoperative investigations and outcomes in a single surgeon practice. ANZ J Surg 2008 Sep;78(9):791-3.
[xxix] Rib�, A Melanocytic lesions of the genital area with attention given to atypical genital nevi. J Cutan Pathol. 2008 Nov;35 Suppl 2:24-7.
[xxx] Rhodes, A. Melanoma’s Public Message. Guest editorial, Skin and Allergy News 2003;34 Posted by Dr. Marc Sorenson at 12:15 PM Labels: African American, dermatology, fraud, melanoma, sunlight, sunscreens, tan, vitamin D, vitamin D deficiency