Is the tide starting to turn?

[Don]

The following article from San Diego (famous for being the home of drufus, an industry "legend" in his own mind) indicates that the "tide of scientific opinion" regarding the relationship between UVR and CMM is starting to turn.

Please note that Dr. Daniels states that "there is no direct connection" between UVR exposure and CMM. In previous issues of Looking Fit magazine I have stated that there is no "causal correlation" between UVR and CMM and that only a "coincidental correlation" (i.e., the fact that exposure to UVR causes the melanocytes to produce melanin) exists.

In an article I am just completing (that will be published in the August or September, 2009 issue of LF), I will (a) elaborate on this "coincidental correlation"; (b) explain how it has "misled" people to believe that UVR causes CMM; and, (c) present a "unified theory" of what I believe really causes CMM. I think that you will find this article very useful!

Blaming CMM on UVR is beneficial to the sunscreen industry and to the "dysfunctional dermatologists" but damaging to the public. In addition, it has delayed the "search" for the real cause of CMM.


Cancer Specialist: Sun Exposure Does Not Cause Melanoma

[Click on the link below to access the article and listen to the audio of the interview.]

Cancer Specialist: Sun Exposure Does Not Cause Melanoma | KPBS.org

SAN DIEGO — The risk of skin cancer increases in San Diego's sunny summer months, but not the risk of melanoma.
Melanoma may be the most deadly form of skin cancer, but it's not the most common. UCSD cancer specialist Gregory Daniels says 95 percent of skin cancers are non-melanomas, which are easy to spot and do not easily spread. Those more benign cancers are caused by UV rays from the sun. But Dr. Daniels says there is no direct connection between getting a lot of sun and getting melanoma.
He says, in fact, "As the incidence of melanoma has risen it's also paralleled a change in behavior that's going on all across the world, and that is people are working indoors."
Studies show that people who get lots of sun, like farmers, are less likely to get melanoma than office workers. He says this could mean that intense, occasional sun exposure increases the risk of the disease.

[Note: I will also explain how/why "intense, occasional sun exposure increases the risk of CMM" and how/why CMM's occur most often on parts of the body NOT exposed to UVR.]

[solman]

Don, as always, looking for to reading your article. Thanks for sharing this positive story with us.

[Kathe]

Yes thanks for sharing this!!

[John]

Can you forward that to every major media outlet on the planet?

[eileen]

Thank you Don! I printed 10 of these to put on front counter an hour ago... they are gone. One girl's mom took it because her daughter is doing a report at college on the healthy side of tanning.

[Kathe]

Last night at 7:30 I did my last spray of the day (7 total). I had printed off this article and posted it in the spray room. The woman came out of the room and said, I think I'm going to start regular tanning. I read that article and now I'm not afraid to tan anymore.

YAY! Thanks Don!

[Don]

Here is another article showing that the tide is starting to turn.

Br J Dermatol. 2009 Jun 9. [Epub ahead of print]
Melanoma epidemic: a midsummer night's dream?
Levell NJ, Beattie CC, Shuster S, Greenberg DC.
Dermatology Department, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich NR4 7UY, U.K.

Summary Background The reported incidence of melanoma has greatly increased and this has been attributed to ultraviolet exposure. Objectives We considered the possibility that the increase was an artefact caused by diagnostic drift. Methods We tested this by analysing the histological diagnosis, mortality and incidence of all lesions reported as melanomas in East Anglia between 1991 and 2004. Results There were 3971 melanomas in all, and their annual incidence increased from 9.39 to 13.91 cases per 100 000 per year during the period studied. This increased incidence was almost entirely due to minimal, stage 1 disease. There was no change in the combined incidence of the other stages of the disease, and the overall mortality only increased from 2.16 to 2.54 cases per 100 000 per year. Conclusions We therefore conclude that the large increase in reported incidence is likely to be due to diagnostic drift which classifies benign lesions as stage 1 melanoma. This conclusion could be confirmed by direct histological comparison of contemporary and past histological samples. The distribution of the lesions reported did not correspond to the sites of lesions caused by solar exposure. These findings should lead to a reconsideration of the treatment of 'early' lesions, a search for better diagnostic methods to distinguish them from truly malignant melanomas, re-evaluation of the role of ultraviolet radiation and recommendations for protection from it, as well as the need for a new direction in the search for the cause of melanoma.

[engfant]

question. If I am pushing "facts" in peoples faces over here will Mr Solarmeter's technology hold up in a court of law or will it be written off as toys?

I'm kinda parked right outside of Mordor overhere and if I'm going to hack away at these people I'm going to need the correct tools.

[CROVINE1]

we need to spread the word!!!!

[engfant]

I already do. My salon is obnoxiously littered with positive Vitamin D info. That's why I'm starting to wonder if this frikkin meter is legit with the D readings or should I change the font to bubblegum and make a joke out of it?