Is sunscreen the New margarine?

[cowpatz]

A well written article.

Is sunscreen the New margarine?

Ever since reading Ian Wishart's book,"The Miracle of Vitamin D", I believe the NZ Cancer society and current public health guidelines have got it wrong.
Just like:

• Margarine
• Thalidomide
• The food pyramid
• Cholesterol and statins

I just wish the author listed references for the studies (like Wishart). It saves having to try and Google them and risk getting the wrong one.

[toprob]

That is a good read. It is very obvious that the sun is of real benefit, at the moment it is gloomy here, hence my flat mood... It is no coincidence that people who suffer from depression refer to it as a cloud overhead, and all my great childhood memories involved sun, sand and surf...
I don't think the Cancer Society got it wrong, it just isn't their job to keep us healthy. They are working to reduce the incidence of cancer, so any reduction is a win for them, even if it comes at a cost, such as vit D deficiencies. The problem is people need to look after themselves to keep things in balance. I do think the overall medical profession is aware of this balance, but the 'official' position can sometimes get out of whack. My doctor is obsessed with testing my cholesterol, whereas the cardiac clinic and specialists tell me to keep away from this. My doctor has a job to do, it doesn't really matter that doing his job might kill me eventually. It is up to me (and the nurses) to keep me alive, not him.
I do worry about my grandkids, but I do think their parents are smart enough to realise that a bit of sun never hurt anyone. Sure, they slather on sun screen and live under a hat when they go to school, otherwise the school wouldn't be doing their job. Even that comes down to making sure that people doing their job isn't what kills ya!
Now if only there was some sun out there, I'd be basking in the health-giving glow of that golden orb.

[cowpatz]

Once again some good comments there Rob although if you read Ian Wishart's book then there can really be no denying that the Cancer society have got it wrong....and they know they have it wrong as they refused to answer some of Wisharts more curly questions. The Cancer society make millions out of selling sunscreen and the one that they market doesn't perform that well against UVA. They ignore that skin cancer rates have soared since the slip, slop, slap campaign, and despite study after study concluding that suncreen use is not necessarily a good defence against skin cancer, and in fact it could be making things worse due to the ineffective protection against UVA whilst out enjoying the sun (instead of be judicious as to when and for how long).

After a recent visit to my GP he reviewed my Cholesterol and asked if I had considered taking Statins. I said I had and that there is no way I would be taking them. My blood pressure is excellent and my cholesterol at 5.5. So why would I take them. In fact my cholesterol level was higher when I was much younger. Everyone has an individual cholesterol level and the body will produce it if it gets down to a certain point. It feeds the brain. As you age the level naturally increases. According to many studies the longest living residents in rest homes have high cholesterol levels. It helps protect against stroke.
Interestingly what the Statin manufacturers don't mention is that rates of cancer increase significantly with Statin use. The WHO is looking at lowering the recommended Cholesterol level to 3.5. That would mean 90% of Britons would need to be on Statins.....really? It is a multi billion dollar industry that lobbies hard. Even my GP eventually admitted to getting an "incentive" from the pharmaceutical company for prescribing them.
Statins do have one benefit and this is if the individual has experienced a cardiac event. The reason why is not really understood but it has been suggested that the Statin acts as a blood thinner.
Other than that by taking a Statin you increase your average life expectancy by one or two days, according to studies.

If you are interested in the great cholesterol/statin con then I highly recommend grabbing a coffee or beer and watching the following video "Demonization and Deception in Cholesterol Research" by Dr David Diamond. He is an excellent speaker and presents in a way lay persons can comprehend.
Also a good read is a book called "The great cholesterol con" by Malcolm Kendrick.
The same person responsible for this cholesterol debacle was also responsible for the original food pyramid, which of course has now been completely inverted!
This cretin's name is Ancel Keys and he was a fish botanist.....yep you read that right....a fish physiologist with no clue on human nutrition at all. In fact his original study on cholesterol and heart health was seriously flawed and deliberately manipulated so as to agree with his hypothesis....something that you would be jailed for today.

Watch on youtube.com

[Charl]

If you go and sit in the blowtorch that is the NZ or Queensland summer sun, Vit D is not what should concern most humans, especially those with a melanin deficiency.

I can't wait for science and medicine to move on from "one size fits all".
Some day, when a personalised genome profile exists for everyone, we'll look back at all these Truths the same way we now think of bleeding someone to evict bad spirits.

But I sat through the Dave Diamond clip and enjoyed him thoroughly.
Butter won't kill you, but obesity, stress, and smoking stand a better chance?
Sounds reasonable to me, and I am working on that remaining 1/3.

[Splitpin]

That was the best thing I've watched for a long time. The guy is, as you said CP "an excellent speaker and presents in a way lay persons can comprehend."
My old mum is on those statin drugs among others that I doubt are doing her any good.
I will re-watch this with a bottle of nice Merlot, and a double cream camembert toasted croissant, while thumbing my nose at Mr Keys ..... a cretin indeed CP

[jpreou]

The medical industry, and cancer especially, is not interested in prevention, reduction or cure except at a face level. There is too much money in care and control. You only have to look into the history of cancer research to see that and as cowpatz said, doctors getting incentives for prescribing *any* kind of medication.
Want a good read? "World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17" by G. Edward Griffin

[cowpatz]

If you go and sit in the blowtorch that is the NZ or Queensland summer sun, Vit D is not what should concern most humans, especially those with a melanin deficiency.

You are 100% and I believe that no one is advocating anyone doing that. What is suggested is at least getting a few minutes exposure in the summer and longer in winter. In the summer this would mean out of the peak UV periods and winter probably during peak UV. Ironically it is not the outdoor workers that are suffering but the office/indoor workers. There are times of the day that it is appropriate to be covered and others where it is more desirable to "expose" a little flesh. This would vary with skin type and melanin levels of course. So there is such a thing as a healthy tan after all. There is no denying that the skin will age prematurely, if you are a sun worshiper, but there may be added health benefits over and above an increased Vitamin D level. As per the article there is a direct health/wellbeing relationship between mankind and the sun.

Arguably Health politics is entrenched, heavily influenced by the Pharmaceutical industry and resistant to change. Any health study (especially one that involves medication) needs looking at closely to see who it was funded by.
As an example my partners Oncologist surgeon has a radiation device that is used during breast surgery rather than some time later. A probe is placed into the surgical area and radiation directed to the immediate area. It is quick and effective with only one application required at at a reduced dose. Recovery time is a fraction of the time of conventional radiotherapy and those that have had it done return to work in a week or two and not months. However despite the patient testimony Southern Cross will not fund the procedure (even though the machine is housed within their hospital) because they say that there is insufficient data to conclude if it works or not. This method has been used since the early 70's and there is extensive data available, however, the peer review group of Oncologists/radiotherapists (a bunch of old men) feel threatened by this prominent female surgeon introducing a new procedure that will considerably reduce treatment.