SEARCH
Dermatology's Disastrous War Against The Sun
Related: cancer, design is destiny, exposure, follow the money, follow the self-interest, health, melanoma, photobiomodulation, skin cancer
re: sunlight
re: photobiomodulation
re: design is destiny
re: follow the money
True? Is there a debunk?
The thing I find persuasive is that fatal skin cancers occur just as much where the sun don’t shine [sic]. And that all this sunblock stuff has shown no redunction in fatal skin cancers. And that sunlight and photobiomodulation are inherent to the design of the system and system design is destiny.
I’ve had dermatologists grudgingly admit to me and/or at least hedge their answers when I ask them point blank if they think sunlight causes fatal skin cancers. They give me a blank stare when I ask about the benefits of sunlight. IMO, this makes the profession largely quackery, at least in this area.
Same article at The Shocking Truth About Skin Cancer: What You’re Not Being Told About the Sun. See also the short video at X.com.
Dermatology's Disastrous War Against The Sun
2024-05-10.
The forgotten side of skin health and the necessity of sunlight
Story at a Glance:
•Skin cancers are by far the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, so to prevent them, the public is constantly told to avoid the sun. However, while the relatively benign skin cancers are caused by sun exposure, the ones responsible for most skin cancer deaths are due to a lack of sunlight.•This is unfortunate because sunlight is arguably the most important nutrient for the human body, as avoiding it doubles one’s rate of dying and significantly increases their risk of cancer.
•A strong case can be made that this dynamic was a result of the dermatology profession (with the help of a top PR firm) rebranding themselves to skin cancer fighters, something which allowed them to become one of the highest paying medical specialities in existence. Unfortunately, despite the billions that is put into fighting it each year, there has been no substantial change in the number of skin cancer deaths.
•In this article, we will also discuss the dangers of the conventional skin cancer treatments, the most effective ways for treating and preventing skin cancer, and some of the best strategies for having a healthy and nourishing relationship with the sun.
...
The Monopolization of Medicine
Throughout my life, I’ve noticed three curious patterns in the medical industry:
- They will promote healthy activities people are unlikely to do (e.g., exercising or smoking cessation).
- They will promote clearly unhealthy activities industries make money from (e.g., eating processed foods or taking a myriad of unsafe and ineffective pharmaceuticals).
- They will attack clearly beneficial activities that are easy to do (e.g., sunlight exposure, eating eggs, consuming raw dairy, or eating butter).
...The Benefits of Sunlight
One of the oldest “proven” therapies in medicine was having people bathe in sunlight (e.g., it was one of the few things that actually had success in treating the 1918 influenza, prior to antibiotics it was one of the most effective treatments for treating tuberculosis and it was also widely used for a variety of other diseases). In turn, since it is safe, effective, and freely available, it stands to reason that unscrupulous individuals who wanted to monopolize the practice of medicine would want to cut off the public’s access to it.
Note: the success of sunbathing was the original inspiration for ultraviolet blood irradiation.Because of how successful the war against sunlight has been many people are unaware of its benefits. Forexample:
1. Sunlight is critical for mental health. This is most well appreciated with depression (e.g., seasonal affective disorder) but in reality the effects are far more broad reaching
...
The Great Dermatology Scam
If you consider the previous section, the following should be fairly clear:
• By far the most common “skin cancer” is not dangerous.
• The “skin cancers” you actually need to worry about are a fairly small portion of the existing skin cancers.
• Sunlight exposure does not cause dangerous cancers (except for SCC, which is nowhere near as dangerous as the others).In essence, there’s no way to justify “banning sunlight” to “prevent skin cancer,” as the “benefit” from this prescription is vastly outweighed by its harm. However, a very clever linguistic trick bypasses this contradiction—a single label, “skin cancer,” is used for everything, which then selectively adopts the lethality of melanoma, the frequency of BCC, and the sensitivity to sunlight that BCC and SCC have.
This has always really infuriated me, so I’ve given a lot of thought to why they do this.
Note: Dr Malcom Kendrick @AMAZON helps provide some perspective on how this game is played throughout the medical industry by sharing a story from Michael Baum MD:
Each year I play a game with the senior postgraduate students at a course for specialists in cancer run by the Royal College of Surgeons of England. I tell them that there are two potentially effective screening tools for prostate cancer, one which will reduce their chances of dying from the disease by between 20 and 30 per cent, while the other will save one life after 10,000 person-years of screening. As a consumer or as a public health official, which one would you buy into? They all vote for the first; yet the two programmes are the same, they were just packaged differently. To continue marketing screening in terms of relative risk reduction in breast cancer mortality is disingenuous in the extreme.
However, I must emphasize that some skin cancers (e.g., many melanomas) require immediate removal. My point here is to encourage you not to avoid dermatologists entirely but to consider seeking a second opinion from another dermatologist if you are unsure about what has been suggested to you as there are many excellent and ethical dermatologists practicing in the field as well.
The Great Dermatology Scam
If you consider the previous section, the following should be fairly clear:
• By far the most common “skin cancer” is not dangerous.
• The “skin cancers” you actually need to worry about are a fairly small portion of the existing skin cancers.
• Sunlight exposure does not cause dangerous cancers (except for SCC, which is nowhere near as dangerous as the others).In essence, there’s no way to justify “banning sunlight” to “prevent skin cancer,” as the “benefit” from this prescription is vastly outweighed by its harm. However, a very clever linguistic trick bypasses this contradiction—a single label, “skin cancer,” is used for everything, which then selectively adopts the lethality of melanoma, the frequency of BCC, and the sensitivity to sunlight that BCC and SCC have.
This has always really infuriated me, so I’ve given a lot of thought to why they do this.
Note: Dr Malcom Kendrick @AMAZON helps provide some perspective on how this game is played throughout the medical industry by sharing a story from Michael Baum MD:
Each year I play a game with the senior postgraduate students at a course for specialists in cancer run by the Royal College of Surgeons of England. I tell them that there are two potentially effective screening tools for prostate cancer, one which will reduce their chances of dying from the disease by between 20 and 30 per cent, while the other will save one life after 10,000 person-years of screening. As a consumer or as a public health official, which one would you buy into? They all vote for the first; yet the two programmes are the same, they were just packaged differently. To continue marketing screening in terms of relative risk reduction in breast cancer mortality is disingenuous in the extreme.
However, I must emphasize that some skin cancers (e.g., many melanomas) require immediate removal. My point here is to encourage you not to avoid dermatologists entirely but to consider seeking a second opinion from another dermatologist if you are unsure about what has been suggested to you as there are many excellent and ethical dermatologists practicing in the field as well.
...
WIND: I vote for sunlight. I get some every day.
Pick your poison
Follow the money will never lead you wrong. If sunlight actually caused skin harm, recommending exposure would be GOOD for business (at least for dermatologists). Conversely, avoiding sun would be bad for business.
Either reject follow the money, the principle of human behavior that never wrongly predicts.
Or accept that you are being advised to do something not in your best interest.
Which will you have?
