Recent research blaming sunlight exposure for the growing incidences of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, has failed to consider crucial information that could turn the entire concept on its head, according to Dr. William Grant, an epidemiologist writing for the Vitamin D Council.
One important point the research missed was that sometimes sunscreen can actually increase your risk of melanoma, especially in the Northern Hemisphere.
There are other studies showing that chronic UV (ultraviolet) light exposure may actually reduce the risk of melanoma.
Allow me to explain …
Are Rates of Melanoma Really Increasing?
The first point that needs to be addressed is whether melanoma cases are really on the rise. As Dr. Grant stated:
“Two recent papers blame increased ultraviolet (UV) exposure for the growing rates of melanoma in the UK. Not considered were other possible explanations for the rising rates of melanoma, including the use of sunscreen, especially at latitudes above 40º, and a combination of underdiagnosis in the past with over diagnosis more recently. [Melanoma mortality rates changed little in the U.S. between 1986 and 2001 while incidence rates more than doubled."
Further research published in the British Journal of Dermatologyshows that the sharp increase in melanoma rates over the last three decades may actually be "an artifact caused by diagnostic drift." Diagnostic drift, according to the study, refers to a hefty increase in disease that is being fueled by non-cancerous lesions.
During the study period from 1991 to 2004, there were nearly 4,000 cases of melanoma included in the report, with an annual increase of 9.39 to 13.91 cases per 100,000 per year. The researchers revealed that, rather than being fueled by increasing exposure to sunlight as is commonly suggested, the increased incidence was almost entirely due to non-cancerous lesions misleadingly classified as "stage 1 melanoma." Even the distribution of the lesions reported did not correspond to the sites of lesions caused by sun exposure, leading researchers to conclude:
"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."
Sensible Sunlight is Protective Against Melanoma
Exposure to sunlight, particularly UVB, is protective against melanoma -- or rather, the vitamin D your body produces in response to UVB radiation is protective. As written in The Lancet:
"Paradoxically, outdoor workers have a decreased risk of melanoma compared with indoor workers, suggesting that chronic sunlight exposure can have a protective effect."
A study in Medical Hypothesessuggested that indoor workers may have increased rates of melanoma because they're exposed to sunlight through windows, and only UVA light, unlike UVB, can pass through window glass. At the same time, these indoor workers, who get three to nine times less solar UV exposure than outdoor workers, are missing out on exposure to the beneficial UVB rays, and have lower levels of vitamin D. The study even noted that indoor UV actually breaks down vitamin D3 formed after outdoor UVB exposure, which would therefore make vitamin D3 deficiency and melanoma risk even worse. A number of associations between sun exposure and melanoma can be found in the medical literature, such as:
Occupational exposure, such as farmers and fishermen, and regular weekend sun exposure are associated with decreased risk of melanoma
Sun exposure appears to protect against melanoma on skin sites not exposed to sun light, and melanoma occurring on skin with large UV exposure has the best prognosis
Patients with the highest blood levels of vitamin D have thinner melanoma and better survival prognosis than those with the lowest vitamin D levels.
Vitamin D Reduces Your Risk of Cancer
This is an important point, because if you are shunning the sun for fear of skin cancer, you are, ironically, missing out on one of the most potent natural cancer protections available. Vitamin D's protective effect against cancer works in multiple ways, including:
Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
Causing cells to become fully differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous
A study by Dr. Grant found that about 30 percent of cancer deaths -- which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States -- could be prevented each year with higher levels of vitamin D. As he stated in the featured article, the potential lives saved from optimizing vitamin D levels through safe sun exposure (or a safe tanning bed) far outweighs the reported number of melanoma deaths:
"In 2007, there were 988 male and 837 female deaths from melanoma in the UK, and a total 71,336 male and 65,458 female cancer deaths. Thus, melanoma accounted for 1.4% of male cancer deaths and 1.3% of female cancer deaths. Assuming a 15% reduction in all-cancer incidence and mortality rates with adequate solar UVB exposure would imply 20,500 reduced cancer deaths in 2007, which is 11 times the number of melanoma deaths."
Similarly, in a review of the health effects of sun exposure, tanning beds and vitamin D, researchers again noted that the benefits of vitamin D production outweigh the potentially increased risk of melanoma:
"The overall health benefit of an improved vitamin D status may be more important than the possibly increased CMM [cutaneous malignant melanoma] risk resulting from carefully increasing UV exposure.”
Again, there’s compelling research showing that sun exposure will indeed protect you against melanoma, as a very low level of vitamin D is a major risk factor for this disease. This is, by the way, also a primary reason why using sunscreen every time you go outdoors may actually accelerate, rather than prevent, cancer.
How to Optimize Your Vitamin D While Minimizing Your Risk of Skin Damage
Sun exposure is the best way to optimize your vitamin D levels, because when you expose your skin to sunshine or a safe tanning bed, your skin synthesizes vitamin D3. I believe this is a very compelling reason to really make a concerted effort to get ALL your vitamin D requirements from exposure to sunshine, or by using a safe tanning bed. If neither of these are feasible options, then you should take an oral vitamin D3 supplement. For more information, see my recent video below on how to know if you are getting enough vitamin D from sun exposure.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
UV light from the sun and tanning beds is the main vitamin D source for humans, and researchers have identified an astonishing number of health benefits of vitamin D in the past decade.
But since UV exposure has been suspected of causing skin cancer, many conventional health authorities still warn against it.
A recent review of studies sought to review the health effects of solar radiation, tanning beds and vitamin D.
The researchers looked at data from different time periods for populations at different latitudes, with the aim at looking at the relative risk for cutaneous malignant melanoma associated with tanning bed use, vitamin D and UV effects.
They found that increased tanning bed use was NOT associated with melanoma.
According to the authors:
“Due to the fear of skin cancer, health authorities warn against sun and sunbed exposure.
This policy, as well as the recommended vitamin D doses, may need revision.”
And:
“… The overall health benefit of an improved vitamin D status may be more important than the possibly increased [cutaneous malignant melanoma] risk resulting from carefully increasing UV exposure.”
In fact, Ivan Oransky, the editor of Reuters Health, has previously noted that the real risk of getting skin cancer from a tanning bed is less than three-tenths of one percent—and even then, this is likely only from those who habitually overexpose themselves.
Sun Exposure and Skin Cancer
The authors of the featured review state that while sun exposure is commonly assumed to be the main cause of cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM hereafter referred to simply as melanoma, the most lethal form of skin cancer—the matter is actually NOT “settled.”
The theory is still under dispute, and in their analysis, they reviewed the arguments for and against causation.
With a hint of irony, the authors state that “several factors are probably involved, as exemplified by a relationship sometimes found between gross domestic product and melanoma incidence.” They also list a number of associations between sun exposure and melanoma found in the medical literature, such as:
Intermittent sun exposure and severe sunburn in childhood are associated with anincreased risk of melanoma
Occupational exposure, such as farmers and fishermen, and regular weekend sun exposure are associated with decreased risk of melanoma
Sun exposure appears to protect against melanoma on skin sites not exposed to sun light, and melanoma occurring on skin with large UV exposure has the best prognosis
Patients with the highest blood levels of vitamin D have thinner melanoma and better survival prognosis than those with the lowest vitamin D levels.
So what about tanning beds—are they more dangerous than regular sun exposure? As you may recall, the Senate’s health-care overhaul bill now includes a 10 percent tax on tanning services to dissuade you from engaging in such “health-harming” activities; a move that is unquestionably short sighted and counterproductive considering the fact that vitamin D deficiency is rampant in the U.S.
Where tanning beds are concerned, the science is more conflicted, with some studies finding no detrimental impact from tanning beds on skin cancer rates while others have found that rates of skin cancer are higher in those using tanning beds than those who do not tan. The reason for these conflicting findings, the authors speculate, could very well be due to differences in UVA/UVB ratios and intensities between different types of tanning beds.
What Makes a Tanning Bed Safe?
I believe they’re likely correct in their speculation that the type of tanning bed may be a major factor in whether or not it will have a beneficial or detrimental impact on your cancer risk. Safe tanning beds have less of the dangerous UVA than sunlight, while unsafe ones emit more UVA than sunlight, and it is the UVA rays, which penetrate your skin more deeply than UVB, that appear to be a much more important factor in causing photoaging, wrinkles and skin cancers.
Another important factor when selecting a tanning bed is the type of ballast it employs, to avoid excessive electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. Most tanning units use magnetic ballasts to generate light. These magnetic ballasts are well known sources of EMF fields that can contribute to cancer.
If you hear a loud buzzing noise while in a tanning bed, it has a magnetic ballast system. I strongly recommend you avoid magnetic ballast beds, and restrict your use of tanning beds to those that use electronic ballasts.
High-quality indoor tanning devices are safe if you precisely follow the simple guideline of never getting burned. Your skin should only get the lightest shade of pink after using them. The FDA has very strict guidelines that seem overly restrictive and will likely impair most people from getting enough vitamin D.
The FDA also recommends waiting 24-48 hours between doses. The reason for this is that it takes at least 24 hours for the erythema to go away. This exposure schedule can be described as CONTROLLED SUNSHINE, making it a very safe way to receive the benefits of the sun while indoors. Ideally you should do this also when you are initially exposed to sunshine. But once you have a tan you can easily and safely increase exposure to once a day.
IF Sun Exposure Increases Your Risk of Cancer, Just How Great is that Risk?
Even when looking at the research showing an increased risk for skin cancer from sun exposure, just how great is that risk? Ivan Oransky, M.D., editor of Reuters Health wrote an excellent commentary on this last year.
Each year, during the month of May, as the sun slowly begins to thaw away those winter blues, you start getting bombarded with Skin Cancer Awareness ads; all of which pitch the idea that the sun is your enemy. Many will include the statistic issued by the World Health Organization, which states that “use of sunbeds before the age of 35 is associated with a 75 percent increase in the risk of melanoma.”
Sounds horrific, but how real is this threat?
“[W]hat does that really mean? Is it 75 percent greater than an already-high risk, or a tiny one?” Oransky writes.
“If you read the FDA’s “Indoor Tanning: The Risks of Ultraviolet Rays,” or a number of other documents from the WHO and skin cancer foundations, you won’t find your actual risk. That led AHCJ member Hiran Ratnayake to look into the issue in March for The (Wilmington, Del.) News Journal, after Delaware passed laws limiting teens’ access to tanning salons. The 75 percent figure is based on a review of a number of studies, Ratnayake learned. The strongest such study was one that followed more than 100,000 women over eight years.
But as Ratnayake noted, that study “found that less than three-tenths of 1 percent who tanned frequently developed melanoma while less than two-tenths of 1 percent who didn’t tan developed melanoma.” That’s actually about a 55 percent increase, but when the study was pooled with others, the average was a 75 percent increase.
In other words, even if the risk of melanoma was 75 percent greater than two-tenths of one percent, rather than 55 percent greater, it would still be far below one percent.” [Emphasis mine.]
So, while statistically true, it’s really misleading, and incites undue fear. By only presenting the relative risk increase (the 75 percent increase) they make the risk sound rather unreasonable. Meanwhile, your absolute risk of developing skin cancer from sun exposure is still, AT WORST, below one percent! And please remember, these highly distorted scare tactics fail to mention the BENEFITS of the exposure, which radically reduce the dangers of the far more common, breast, prostate and colon cancers that are reduced.
Understanding the Difference between Relative Risk and Absolute Risk
Oransky explains the importance of understanding the difference between relative risk and absolute risk in his article:
“Absolute risk just tells you the chance of something happening, while relative risk tells you how that risk compares to another risk, as a ratio. If a risk doubles, for example, that’s a relative risk of 2, or 200 percent. If it halves, it’s 0.5, or 50 percent. Generally, when you’re dealing with small absolute risks, as we are with melanoma, the relative risk differences will seem much greater than the absolute risk differences.
You can see how if someone is lobbying to ban something – or, in the case of a new drug, trying to show a dramatic effect – they would probably want to use the relative risk. … So when you read a study that says something doubles the risk of some terrible disease, ask: Doubles from what to what?”
Tanning Beds Decrease Ten Times More Cancers than they Cause
Another important factor to keep in mind is that vitamin D, ideally from sun exposure, may decrease your risk of many other cancers and chronic diseases.
According to the featured review:
“… it can be estimated that increased sun exposure to the Norwegian population might at worst result in 200-300 more melanoma deaths per year, but it would elevate the vitamin D status by about 25 nmol/l and might result in 4,000 fewer internal cancers and about 3,000 fewer cancer deaths overall.
The lack of sunlight exposure leads to more health problems than bone disease and increased risk of cancer. Other benefits include protection against infectious diseases and non-cancerous diseases (diabetes, CVD, multiple sclerosis, and mental disorders).”
Overall, I believe the less than one percent risk of developing skin cancer from sun exposure or a safe tanning bed is well worth it, as increased vitamin D levels will protect you against so many other debilitating and lethal diseases and cancers… There’s also compelling research showing that sun exposure will indeed protect you against melanoma—the most dangerous form of skin cancer.
Sun Exposure is the BEST Way to Optimize Your Vitamin D Levels
In my view, a safe tanning bed comes in as a close second after natural sun exposure as the ideal way to optimize your vitamin D levels (as opposed to getting it from fortified food items or supplements). In a recent interview, Dr. Stephanie Seneff explained how vitamin D—specifically from sun exposure—is intricately tied to healthy cholesterol and sulfur levels, making the recommendation to get your vitamin D from the sun all the more important.
To review the details, please listen to the interview below.
<
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced that mercury poisoning has been linked to skin products.
The products in question are primarily skin lighteners and anti-aging treatments, most of which are manufactured overseas and sold illegally in the United States.
“Exposure to mercury can have serious health consequences,” says Charles Lee, M.D., a senior medical advisor at FDA.
“It can damage the kidneys and the nervous system, and interfere with the development of the brain in unborn children and very young children.”
… “You don’t have to use the product yourself to be affected, says FDA toxicologist Mike Bolger, Ph.D.
“People—particularly children—can get mercury in their bodies from breathing in mercury vapors if a member of the household uses a skin cream containing mercury.”
Infants and small children can ingest mercury if they touch their parents who have used these products, get cream on their hands and then put their hands and fingers into their mouth, which they are prone to do, adds Bolger.”
This is a remarkable admission from an agency that repeatedly has refused to acknowledge the dangers inherent with dental amalgams, which contain about 50 percent mercury—not silver, as the name “silver fillings” might have you believe.
What Can Be More Dangerous than Implanting a Neurotoxin in Your Mouth?
The American Dental Association (ADA) at one time owned the patent for mercury fillings. Both the ADA and FDA have fraudulently been using the term “silver fillings” for decades. This is why so few people realize they’re actually walking around with, in some cases, sizeable amounts of mercury in their teeth! An estimated 75 percent of Americans are ignorant about that fact that half of each amalgam filling is mercury, and this is clearly the result of the ADA’s tactical move to popularize the term “silver fillings.”
The FDA even removed the following statement from its website: “Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses.”
According to Charlie Brown, national counsel, Consumers for Dental Choice:
“To conceal the mercury from America’s parents and consumers, the American Dental Association promoted amalgam as “silver fillings.” The term is a gigantic fraud; amalgam has twice as much mercury as silver. In Spanish amalgam is similarly promoted fraudulenty, as “amalgama plata”. The ADA’s partner in perpetuating this cover-up is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, who cleverly, but deceitfully, says they are called “silver” because of the color. The FDA knows better.” Gold fillings are called gold because of their material, not color. Under the dictionary definition of “silver,” the primary meaning if the material, with money second, silverware third, and the color fourth or fifth. That our nation’s consumer protection agency on devices unabashedly takes the side of the promoter of a consumer fraud is profoundly troubling.
If the presence of mercury in skin cream warrants this kind of prominent action from the FDA, why does the agency refuse to address concerns about placing 1-2 grams of dental amalgam, half of which is mercury, into the mouths of children and pregnant women? A decade ago state Medicaid programs promised to pay for any material, but Connecticut recently decided that low-income families must now choose between mercury fillings and no fillings. For children with disabilities in Philadelphia, for prisoners in California, for Native Americans on reservations, it is is ths same dismal choice: mercury in the mouth, or no dental care…
Dental Amalgam = Continuous Exposure to Mercury
It’s important to realize that once you get an amalgam filling, you’re continually exposed to mercury. Every time you chew, the filling releases mercury vapor into your mouth that deposits and accumulates in your tissues over time. Mercury vapors readily pass through cell membranes, across your blood-brain barrier and into your central nervous system, where it causes psychological, neurological, and immunological problems. Children and fetuses, whose brains are still developing, are most at risk, but really anyone can be impacted.
A 1999 report from the Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, suggested dental amalgams may account for as much as 75 percent of a person’s daily mercury exposure. And the World Health Organization (WHO) has stated that between 3-17 micrograms of mercury are released into the body each day by chewing, compared to only 2-5 micrograms from fish and all other environmental sources combined. An editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine also stated that dental amalgams were “possibly the chief source of exposure [to mercury] of a large segment of the U.S. population”.
Why is the FDA and ADA Protecting the Use of Mercury in Dentistry?
The 2008 Obama/Biden Plan for a Healthy America stressed preventive approaches to disease, including the reduction of toxins. Chief among these toxins was mercury. In their final report on dental amalgam, Future Use of Materials for Dental Restoration, the World Health Organization (WHO) also took a firm stance against the use of mercury in dentistry. In it, WHO states that amalgam “has been associated with general health concerns” and releases a “significant amount of mercury” into the environment. It also notes that alternatives to amalgam are readily available.
Still, nothing has been done so far to eliminate one of the primary sources of exposure in the US, namely dental amalgams.
Other countries are faring much better. Many are already protecting vulnerable populations, especially children, from exposure to amalgam. For example:
The 47 nations of the Council of Europe passed a resolution calling on the nations to start “restricting or prohibiting the use of amalgams as dental fillings,” explaining that “amalgams are the prime source of exposure to mercury for developed countries, also affecting embryos, fetuses (through the placenta) and children (through breastfeeding).
Australia’s National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) says amalgam should be avoided in pregnant women, nursing mothers, children, and people with kidney disease.
Health Canada directed its dentists to stop using amalgam in children, pregnant women, and people with impaired kidney function – way back in 1996.
Germany’s federal court has ruled that dentists who use mercury fillings can face legal liability.
After an ongoing and vigorous campaign to educate Americans on the dangers of dental amalgams, it looked promising when Jeff Shuren, Director of FDA’s Center for Devices, finally promised an announcement on the amalgam rule by end of 2011. But, his promise fell flat. With just minutes to go before the end of the work year, the agency declared it would not issue a statement about mercury fillings When pressed by the trade press, FDA added that it has no plans and no timetable – and may never do anything…
Is it possible that the stated safety of mercury fillings just a big lie to protect the massive liability the ADA, dentists, and mercury filling manufacturers would be exposed to if the FDA would admit mercury fillings actually cause harm?
Is this absolute proof the FDA is willing to accept harm to patients to protect corporate interests?
The mission of the FDA is to protect consumers and patients, but it’s extremely difficult to believe in the case of mercury… Sure, the agency tries to show it cares by coming down hard on a few little guys—rogue skin cream companies that don’t have well-paid lobbyists on The Hill. But when faced with powerful corporate interests, the FDA does nothing.
The Revolving Doors Between the FDA and Various Industries…
FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg could perhaps shed some light on the issue. She participated in the rule making even though she’s a former director and board member of Henry Schein, the largest provider of professional dental products.
According to Charlie Brown:
“In order to be appointed Commissioner, Margaret Hamburg was required to sign, and did sign, a contract promising not to work on any matter affecting Schein Inc. while holding its stock or stock option. While still holding Schein stock option, she worked on the amalgam rule. Specifically, she insisted on a staff meeting with her on July 1, 2009, to shape the pending amalgam rule; this meeting plainly violated her written promise. Records of the 7/1/09 meeting were heavily redacted before being turned over to me.
I wrote the Commissioner three times to ask her to get out of the rule-making process; my letters were ignored until a minor media hubbub occurredt. Hamburg perhaps disqualified herself at that point – or perhaps not, because she never filed a disqualification letter, and FDA refuses to say the date she stopped working on the amalgam rule. In any case, she continued to correspond secretly with Schein’s general counsel (on her private email account) through the entire rule-making process. Immediately after the rule was announced, Schein’s general counsel said the company is “indebted to you”; the following week Schein’s CEO praised the FDA Commissioner for providing “insights” to Schein board members — fully five months after she took office.”
In short, it would appear FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg never really stopped working for Henry Schein Inc…
“No Comment”…
Jim Dickinson, editor of FDA Webview, wrote an insightful editorial concerning FDA’s intransigence in his March 8 post, titled 180 Degrees: FDA’s 2 Faces on Mercury Risks.
“When you’re daubing on mercury skin creams and cosmetics, FDA wants you to know how toxic the mercury vapor coming from them can be not only to you but everyone near you, especially infants and children. But when your dentist is jamming mercury amalgam into your teeth, and contrary to increasing evidence to the contrary, FDA on its Web site wants you know that it “has reviewed the best available scientific evidence to determine whether the low levels of mercury vapor associated with dental amalgam fillings are a cause for concern. Based on this evidence, FDA considers dental amalgam fillings safe for adults and children ages 6 and above.”
… Asked to explain the apparent contradiction in the agency’s position on mercury safety, and specifically asked if there were dosage exposure differences between the two kinds of mercury products, FDA ducked the issue. Press officer for cosmetics, Siobhan DeLancey replied: “I don’t handle the dental side, but I am copying Michelle Bolek, who handles dental amalgam issues.”
Bolek passed it to Morgan Liscinski, who five hours later answered: “We have no further comment regarding the issue of dental amalgam.”
The obvious difference between the two FDA postures could be that in the unapproved imported creams and cosmetics case, no powerful industry that has clout at HHS could be offended by hostile FDA action, while in the dental amalgam case, powerful interests (e.g. the pro-mercury 156,000-member American Dental Association and commissioner Margaret Hamburg’s former investment interest, leading amalgam distributor Henry Schein, Inc.) probably do have clout at HHS and could well be offended by FDA action against amalgam.”
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
When it comes to skin cancer, Big Pharma offers only topical chemo creams and surgery. The chemo creams often don’t work but often do cause ugly, painful side effects. Removing skin cancer tumors surgically usually results with tumors resurfacing sooner or later. Surgeries often leave ugly scars.
However, there are inexpensive, effective, safe cures for curing skin cancer that are banned by the mainstream medical monopoly, which are not publicized by the mainstream media.
A relatively new remedy, BEC5, is a spin off from an Australian folk remedy for farm animals. It is available to anyone online. It uses the phyotonutrients extracted from eggplants. Clinical trials and anecdotal testimonies confirmed BEC5′s efficacy and safety on basal cell and squamous cell cancers.
Melanoma is the least common but most dangerous skin cancer with the highest morbidity rate. It can metastasize into internal organs. The maker and distributors for BEC5 make no claims for curing melanoma so far. But at least one person who made a homemade version that anyone can make claimed it cured his melanoma.
The homemade remedy involves a solution of vinegar and eggplant that extracts the same phyotonutrient glycocides and glycoalkaloids contained in BEC5 directly from the eggplant. The glycoalkaloids penetrate cancer cells selectively and destroy them. Normal cells are left alone.
How to make and use the homemade eggplant remedy
This is an attempt at disclosing what others report cured their skin cancers. It’s purely educational and not meant as medical advice. Some of the anecdotal reports had their skin cancer diagnosed by MDs, with subsequent cures confirmed by MDs.
Some have used white vinegar, while others recommend raw organic apple cider vinegar. Get a medium sized eggplant and grind it up. Put that into a glass jar and fill it up with the vinegar. Place the jar into the refrigerator. After around three days with the white vinegar, the liquid should turn to a brownish gold color. That indicates it’s ready to use.
Apple cider vinegar is already a similar color, but three days seasoning in a refrigerator should be enough.
Apply it directly to tumors often with a cotton ball, or secure the soaked cotton onto the tumor with tape. Treatment may take a couple of weeks or more. Both commercial BEC5 cream and the homemade version also work on warts and other unhealthy skin conditions.
One user mentioned that according to his doctor (naturopath?), if the homemade procedure is painful, then it is melanoma that’s under attack. Many of these homemade remedy users were in Australia, where Dr. Bill Cham, MD, PhD, found out about the Devil’s Apple plant used by veterinarians and farmers to cure skin cancers on farm animals.
Dr. Cham claims a high, safe cure rate with non-melanoma skin cancers from his own clinical testing. Detractors claim there are no published reports in medical journals. That could be due to the fact that Dr. Cham had to go it alone testing his cream on skin cancer patients in the UK hospital system. Dr. Cham demonstrates and explains his BEC5 cream in a video.
Mainstream medicine always attacks natural non-pharmaceutical cures and their sponsors. However, a well known physician, Dr. Jonathan Wright MD, founder of the holistic Tahoma Clinic in the Seattle Washington area, backs up Dr. Cham. Dr. Wright sells BEC5 creams and explains how it works and how it was tested within the UK system.
Dr. Cham determined that the same curative glycoalkaloids were available in eggplant. From there he went on and pioneered the development of BEC5 in London.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States.
In fact, the incidence of skin cancer cases each year is higher than all other cancer combined, and has risenmore than 300 percent since 1992.
There are now more than 3.5 million nonmelanoma skin cancer cases diagnosed every year in the United States, bringing numbers well into epidemic proportions.
Clearly Americans’ well-intentioned efforts to cover up with sunscreen are not doing the trick, and I’ll explain some of the reasons for this below, but first I want to share with you a ground-breaking, completely natural substance that research shows can cure non melanoma skin cancers.
It’s called Solasodine rhamnosyl glycosides (BEC), which is a fancy name for extracts from plants of the Solanaceae family, such as eggplant, tomato, potato, Bell peppers, and tobacco.
Eggplant and Similar Plant Extracts Used for Treating Cancer Since 1825
There are reports that extracts of plants from the Solanaceae family of vegetables are effective for treating cancer dating back nearly 200 years to 1825, according to natural health pioneer Dr. Jonathan Wright. However, it wasn’t until much later, after the 1950s, that they were formally studied.
The leading researcher in this area today is Dr. Bill E. Cham, who reported as early as 1991 in Cancer Letters that:
“A cream formulation containing high concentrations (10%) of a standard mixture of solasodine glycosides (BEC) has been shown to be effective in the treatment of malignant and benign human skin tumors.
We now report that a preparation … which contains very low concentrations of BEC (0.005%) is effective in the treatment of keratoses, basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) of the skin of humans. In an open study, clinical and histological observations indicated that all lesions (56 keratoses, 39 BCCs and 29 SCCs) treated with [the preparation] had regressed.”
A subsequent study by separate researchers also noted that a 0.005% mixture of solasodine glycosides called BEC5 is a “safe therapy for basal cell carcinoma, with a cure rate of 66% at 8 weeks and 78% at 1 year follow-up.”
The findings are exciting, to say the least, because while basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas — the two most common types of skin cancer — are highly curable even by conventional medical standards, there are serious disadvantages with the common treatments. As Dr. Cham reported, the treatment and management of nonmelanoma skin cancers cost more than $1.4 billion per year in the United States, a number that is increasing exponentially each year and quickly becoming unsustainable.
Further, the common treatments, surgery and radiation therapy, pose the following problems:
Surgery may not remove all cancerous cells
Painful with slow healing
Scarring often occurs, which can be cosmetically unappealing, especially if the cancer is on your face
Serious health risks of radiation therapy
High recurrence rates have been reported following conventional treatment
That affordable eggplant extract appears to rapidly cure cancerous lesions with absolutely no scarring and only minor itching and burning as side effects is impressive.
Two Skin Cancer Case Studies Show Amazing Results With Eggplant-Extract Cream
Dr. Cham’s latest study was published in the International Journal of Clinical Medicine this year. The paper includes two impressive case reports of 60-something men who were suffering from large basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), which had plagued them for years. The results upon treatment with a cream formulation of BEC (eggplant extract) twice a day are astounding, and you can view the pictures here:
In the first case, treatment with the eggplant-extract cream resulted in rapid break down of the tumor. After two weeks, the lesion was reduced to about half its original size, and after 14 weeks the cancer was clinically eliminated with no scar tissue formation. Even the hairs had regrown where the tumor was originally.
In the second case, after six weeks of treatment with eggplant-extract cream the large skin cancer lesion appeared “cleaner” and some of the cancerous tissue had been replaced with normal tissue. In another three weeks, the lesion was much smaller and more normal tissue was apparent. After a total of 14 weeks, the lesion was completely eliminated with no scar tissue present.
Interestingly, the BEC, and the specific formulation BEC5, which has been used successfully on more than 80,000 patients according to Dr. Cham, appears to impact only cancerous cells leaving normal cells alone. Dr. Cham explains:
The mode of action of SRGs [glycoalkaloids solasodine rhamnosy glycosides (BEC)] is unlike any current antineoplastic [anti-tumor] agent. Specific receptors for the SRGs present only on cancer cells but not normal cells are the first step of events that lead to apoptosis in cancer cells only, and this may explain why during treatment the cancer cells were being eliminated and normal cells were replacing the killed cancer cells with no scar tissue being formed.
The two cases presented here are large and anatomically difficult to treat lesions. There is little doubt that the cosmetic end result of this type of treatment is at least, or more likely, superior to other available treatments. At the completion of treatment, it could not be distinguished where the tumors once were!”
Unfortunately, simply eating eggplant, tomatoes, peppers or similar veggies, while beneficial for many reasons, will not induce this same effect because the active components are not able to effectively penetrate your cells. This requires the addition of glycosides, molecules with various simple sugars attached to them that can latch on to receptors found on skin cancer cells.
Dr. Wright explains:
“BEC5 is a name for a mixture of 1/3 solasonine and 1/3 solamargine in the “triglycoside” form, and 1/3 “diglycosides and monoglycosides” of these two basic molecules. Solasonine and solamargine themselves are actually very similar (but not identical to) human cholesterol and steroid molecules.
By themselves, solasonine and solamargine don’t have anticancer activity because they can’t penetrate into cells, cancerous or normal. That’s why just eating the foods that contain these compounds won’t eliminate your skin cancer or even reduce your risk of getting it. In order for them to be effective, they need to be able to get into the cells. That’s where the glycosides come in. Glycoside is a term used to describe molecules with various simple sugars attached to them.
One of these simple sugars, called rhamnose, selectively latches on to receptors present only in skin cancer cell membranes and in actinic keratosis. When you combine the solasonine and solamargine with rhamnose, they can get into the cells where they cause cancer cell death by destroying cell components called lysosomes. Normal cells escape any harm, since the BEC5 can’t get into them.”
Lack of Sunlight Increases Your Risk of Melanoma Skin Cancer
What’s even better than an inexpensive, safe and natural cure for skin cancer is, of course, preventing it in the first place. And to do that you’ve got to get your mind around this fact: In fact, doing this will actually increase your risk of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, because it will decimate your vitamin D levels.
Avoiding the sun and slathering on sunscreen is NOT the best way to prevent skin cancer!
Your organs convert the vitamin D in your bloodstream into calcitriol, which is the hormonal or activated version of vitamin D. Your organs then use it to repair damage, including damage from cancer cells and tumors. Exposure to sunlight is the optimal way to maintain therapeutic blood levels of vitamin D, so if you’ve been shunning the sun, or applying sunscreen, which blocks your body’s ability to produce vitamin D, you’re likely deficient and missing out on these anti-cancer benefits.
Vitamin D’s protective effect against cancer works in multiple ways, including:
Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous
A study by Dr. William Grant, Ph.D., internationally recognized research scientist and vitamin D expert, found that about 30 percent of cancer deaths — which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States – could be prevented each year with higher levels of vitamin D!
Several studies have also confirmed that appropriate sun exposure actually helps prevent skin cancer. In fact, melanoma occurrence has been found to decrease with greater sun exposure, and can be increased by sunscreens. One such study revealed that melanoma patients who had higher levels of sun exposure were less likely to die than other melanoma patients, and patients who already had melanoma and got a lot of sun exposure were prone to a less aggressive tumor type.
Another Italian study, published in the European Journal of Cancer, also confirmed and supported earlier studies showing improved survival rates in melanoma patients who were exposed to sunlight more frequently in the time before their melanoma was diagnosed.
Melanoma is actually more common in indoor workers than in outdoor workers, and is more common on regions of your body that are not exposed to the sun at all. UVB radiation has been found to delay the appearance of melanoma if you are genetically predisposed or prone to skin cancer.
Why Most Sunscreens Will Not Protect You Against Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer
Aside from their impact on your vitamin D levels, most sunscreens are worse than useless because they provide inadequate UVA protection. There are two primary types of UV rays from sunlight that you need to be concerned with, the vitamin-D-producing UVB rays and the skin-damaging UVA light.
Both UVA and UVB can cause tanning and burning, although UVB does so far more rapidly. UVA, however, penetrates your skin more deeply than UVB, and may be a much more important factor in photoaging, wrinkles and non-melanoma skin cancers.
However, if you think your sunscreen is protecting you from UVA, you’re likely being deceived, as a 2011 Environmental Working Group analysis found that more than 60 percent of sunscreen products reviewed provide inadequate UVA protection, and are actually so ineffective that they would not be approved in the European market.
Since UVA’s are inherently more damaging AND persistently high during all daylight hours, wearing a sunscreen that doesn’t protect you from UVA is going to give you virtually no benefit and be detrimental to your overall health. So it’s important to understand that if you’re using sunscreen, you need to be certain you are actually getting UVA protection.
Europe is taking a far more stringent stance to ensure that consumers are protected against the damaging UVA light when they use sunscreens, but in the United States sunscreen standards fall short.
As EWG reported:
” … Europe’s proposed standards for UVA protection are far more stringent than FDA’s. The agency has spent years finalizing a rule that would merely require disclosure of UVA protection levels, while Europe has proposed that sunscreens provide UVA protection at a level at least one-third as strong as the sunburn protection level (SPF).
This means the minimum UVA protection in Europe would be roughly equivalent to FDA’s proposed three-star protection level. Requiring balanced protection across the UVB and UVA spectrum has the secondary effect of limiting sky-high SPF values, ensuring that sunburn protection isn’t out of step with protection from other health problems, such as free radical damage and skin cancer.
Very few sunscreens on the U.S. market would meet the baseline UVA protection standards proposed in Europe.”
Using the Sun for Skin Cancer Prevention
The key to effectively using the sun for skin cancer protection is to find a healthy balance between getting enough natural sunlight to maximize your vitamin D production and maintain your optimal health, while at the same time protecting yourself from damage that occurs from overexposure to the sun.
A good rule of thumb to follow is once your skin turns the lightest shade of pink (if you’re Caucasian), it’s time to get out of the sun. Past this point of exposure your body will not produce any more vitamin D and you’ll begin to have sun damage — and sunburn anywhere on your body is not good for your health.
You should seek to use natural sunlight as your primary source of vitamin D, but during the winter a safe tanning bed (one that uses electronic, not magnetic, ballasts and has lower levels of UVA than even the sun does, as most non-safe beds have higher UVA levels than the sun) is the next best alternative.
If neither of these options are available to you then you can use an oral vitamin D3 supplement, but keep in mind you may miss out on all of the benefits, and researchers have found that daily intakes of vitamin D by adults in the range of 8,000 IU are needed so your blood levels are in the therapeutic range. You can find out more about how to use vitamin D therapeutically to protect your health here.
Your Diet Can Also Protect You from Skin Cancer
Consuming a healthy diet full of natural antioxidants is a useful strategy to ensure your body is primed to have the best defense against overexposure to the sun’s harmful UVA rays at all times.
Fresh, raw, unprocessed foods deliver the nutrients that your body needs to maintain a healthy balance of omega-6 and omega-3 oils in your skin, which is your first line of defense against sunburn. Fresh, raw vegetables also provide your body with an abundance of powerful antioxidants that will help you fight the free radicals caused by sun damage that can lead to burns and cancer. As Wright also recommends, some of the most important foods and nutrients to focus on for skin-cancer prevention include:
The recently appreciated highly beneficial carotenoid called astaxanthin has also piqued the interest of researchers due to its ability to reduce signs of aging by helping protect your skin from sun damage. Astaxanthin is extracted from marine algae in response to exposure to UV light. This is the way the algae protects itself from UVB damage, so it makes perfect sense that this deeply pigmented substance would have the capacity to “shield” you when it is taken in appropriate quantities for a sufficient time (usually several weeks) to saturate your body’s tissues.
Cyanotech Corporation funded a study through an independent consumer research laboratory to measure the skin’s resistance to both UVA and UVB light before and after astaxanthin supplementation. The result was that in only three weeks of taking 4 mg per day subjects showed a significant increase in the amount of time necessary for UV radiation to redden their skin. You can find more information on how to use astaxanthin to help protect your skin from sun damage here.
Your body is made to be in the sun, and, when done properly, sun exposure will be one of the best ways you can help reduce your risk of skin, and many other forms of, cancer. In the event you do develop non-melanoma skin cancer, talk to your holistic health care practitioner about all the treatment options available, including the potentially least expensive and least invasive ones, like eggplant extract.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
Sunlight is possibly the most powerful natural broad spectrum drug.
The medical doctor and author, Dr. Auguste Rollier, was the most famous heliotherapist of his day. At his peak, he operated 36 clinics with over 1,000 beds in Leysin, Switzerland. His clinics were situated 5,000 feet above sea level.
The intensity of ultraviolet light increases by 4 percent for every 1000 feet of elevation above sea level. So at 5000 feet, the sun’s UV intensity is increased by a whole 20 percent. The strategically placed clinics allowed his patients to catch a lot more UV light. Dr. Rollier used this UV light to treat diseases such as tuberculosis (TB), rickets, smallpox, lupus vulgaris (skin tuberculosis), and wounds.
He followed in the footsteps of the Danish physician Dr. Niels Finsen, who won the Nobel Prize in 1903 for his treatment of TB using ultraviolet light. In a span of 20 years, more than 2,000 cases of surgical (bone and joint) tuberculosis were treated, and more than 80% were discharged as cured at Dr. Rollier’s clinics.
Rollier found that sunbathing early in the morning, in conjunction with a nutritious diet, produced the best effects. The patients (many of them children) were gradually exposed to the sun’s rays until the whole body could be bared. In winter the whole day could be spent in the sunshine and dry, cold air. In summer however, exposure was limited to the morning hours only.
More than 100,000 lives were lost each year from tuberculosis, the ‘White Plague’, as it was then called. The miraculous complete cures of tuberculosis and many other diseases made headlines at that time.
What surprised the medical community most was the fact that the sun’s healing rays remained ineffective if the patients wore sunglasses. [Sunglasses block out important rays of the light spectrum which the body requires for essential biological functions. Note: your eyes receive these rays even if you are in the shade] By the year 1933, there were over 165 different diseases for which sunlight proved to be a beneficial treatment.
However, with the death of Rollier in 1954 and the growing dominance of the pharmaceutical industry, heliotherapy sadly fell into disuse. The gentle effectiveness of cure by sunlight was ignored and soon forgotten.
By the 1960s, manmade ‘miracle drugs’ had replaced the medical fraternity’s fascination with the sun’s healing powers. By the 1980s the public was increasingly bombarded with warnings about sun-bathing and the risks of skin cancer from exposure to sun. People were alarmed and even terrorized by the strong lobby of the sunscreen industry that put financial gains far above social health and wellbeing.
Today, the sun is considered the main culprit precipitating skin cancer, certain cataracts leading to blindness, and aging of the skin. Only those who take the ‘risk’ of exposing themselves to sunlight find that the sun actually makes them feel better, provided they do not use sunscreens or burn their skin by way of overexposure.
——————————
This is an excerpt from my book HEAL YOURSELF WITH SUNLIGHT
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page
Overall, since the beginning of the new millennium, each year one million Americans are being diagnosed with some form of skin cancer. There are millions of sufferers now, all of whom have been made to believe that the depleting ozone has rendered sunlight dangerous. This has lead people to believe that the sun is the main culprit for their skin diseases. It is a sad and unfortunate and even harmful misconception.
Since UV radiation is actually decreasing every year and skin cancers were extremely rare 100 years ago when UV intensity was much higher and people spent much more time outdoors, what other factor could be held responsible for causing skin cancer?
If it is not the sun and not the earth that have turned hostile to life, the only other precipitating factor must lie in a changed behavior of man himself. What could this change in man be? We do know that is not a physiological or anatomical change. So, it has to be a change in our behavior, our actions.
Our skin is susceptible to damage from sunlight. But skin damage occurs only from overexposure to sunlight. There is a limit to which our skin can tolerate strong sunlight. Beyond that limit, our body signals out for respite. The obvious signs of sunburn appear. If we follow these signals and seek shelter, we eliminate chances of skin damage in a natural instinctive way. It is only by ignoring or suppressing these signals that we subject our skin to harm from overexposure.
Some of us consciously ignore the evident signs of sunburn on account of certain obligations. An appropriate example would be that of a farmer working in his fields or an athlete spending long hours on the tracks.
Yet others choose to suppress the innate indications of injury to the skin from overexposure to the sun by the use of certain suppressive applications. An apt example is that of a holiday-maker on the beach, sunbathing after applying an arbitrary amount of a sunscreen. This man, in all probability, may be unaware that the sunscreen is suppressive by nature.
Let us take the two examples of the ignorant farmer and the holiday-maker who is suppressing the body’s normal response to overexposure. Both the farmer and the holiday-maker may be overexposed to sunlight to the same extent. Yet the holiday-maker who is suppressing his natural reaction, is at a greater risk of disease. This is because he is upsetting his physiology and not allowing his body to function the way it normally should. He is creating an unnatural condition for himself by applying sunscreen which his own body has not created and cannot recognize.
We are born with a natural sunscreen in the form of the pigment melanin. Any additional interference by the use of artificial sun-blocks totally unsettles the body’s natural mechanism of coping with the overexposure to sunlight. The suppression gives wrong signals to the body which then fails to understand and reacts abnormally.
Our ancestors never applied sunscreen. What I am trying to reiterate is that, it is neither the sun nor the earth that is responsible for promoting the occurrence of skin cancer. It is man’s changing lifestyle, his desire to find artificial substitutes that actually deprive him from leading a normal, natural, healthy life.
——————————
This is an excerpt from my book HEAL YOURSELF WITH SUNLIGHT
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page
Nearly all skin diseases such as eczema, acne, and psoriasis have one factor in common: gallstones in the liver. Almost every person with a skin disease also has intestinal problems and impure blood, in particular. These are mainly caused by gallstones and the harmful effects they have on the body as a whole. Gallstones contribute to numerous problems throughout the body – particularly in the digestive, circulatory, and urinary systems. In its attempt to eliminate what the colon, kidneys, lungs, liver, and lymphatic system are unable to remove or detoxify, the skin becomes flooded and overburdened with acidic waste. Although the skin is the largest organ of elimination in the body, it eventually succumbs to the acid assault. The toxic material is deposited first in the connective tissue underneath the dermis. When this ‘waste depot’ becomes saturated, the skin begins to malfunction.
Excessive amounts of noxious substances, cell debris, microbes from different sources (such as gallstones), and various antigens from improperly digested foods congest the lymphatic system and inhibit proper lymph drainage from the various, living layers of the skin. The toxins and putrefying protein from damaged or destroyed skin cells attract microbes and become a source of constant irritation and inflammation of the skin. Skin cells begin to suffer malnourishment, which may greatly reduce their normal interval of turnover (about once every month). This may also cause extensive damage to skin nerves.
If the sebaceous glands, which pour their secretion, sebum, into the hair follicles, become nutrient deficient, hair growth becomes abnormal and, in particular, scalp hair may fall out. When the body’s melanin supply becomes deficient, the hair turns gray prematurely. Sebum deficiency alters the healthy texture of the hair and makes it look dull and unattractive. On the skin, sebum acts as a bactericidal and fungicidal agent, preventing the invasion of microbes. It also prevents drying and cracking of the skin, especially when exposed to sunshine and hot, dry air.
A genetic predisposition toward developing baldness or any other skin disorder may play a role but is not a major causative factor, as is often assumed. Healthy skin functions are often completely restored and hair growth, particularly among women, is returned to normal once all gallstones are removed and the colon and kidneys/bladder are kept clean.
Second only to the brain in complexity, the liver masterminds the most intricate processes of digestion and metabolism, thereby affecting the life and health of every cell in the body. Gallstones in the liver are a major cause of illness and disorders in the body, including skin disorders.
——————————
This is an excerpt from my book THE AMAZING LIVER AND GALLBLADDER FLUSH
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page
The time when getting outside on the first sunny spring day is long gone. Only the very courageous or ‘careless’ who defy the grim warnings from medical mandarins and cancer specialists – wholeheartedly endorsed by the sunscreen industry – dare to venture forth into the ‘dangerous’ sun.
Fortunately, this view is beginning to crumble in the blatant absence of scientific proof that sunlight causes disease. What is being discovered instead is that lack of sun exposure is one of the greatest risk factors for disease.
A Long-Standing Treatment
Before antibiotic drugs were discovered, the healing power of sunlight was favored by the medical community, at least in Europe. Sunlight therapy, called heliotherapy, was indeed considered to be the most successful treatment for infectious diseases from the late 19th to the mid-20th century. Studies revealed that exposing patients to controlled amounts of sunlight dramatically lowered elevated blood pressure (up to 40 mm Hg drop), decreased cholesterol in the bloodstream, lowered abnormally high blood sugar in diabetics, and increased the number of white blood cells, which people need to help resist disease. Patients suffering from gout, rheumatoid arthritis, colitis, arteriosclerosis, anemia, cystitis, eczema, acne, psoriasis, herpes, lupus, sciatica, kidney problems, asthma, and even burns, have all received great benefits from the healing rays of the sun.
Change Your Perceptions
Today, the sun is considered the main culprit for causing skin cancer, certain cataracts leading to blindness, and aging of the skin. Only those who take the ‘risk’ of exposing themselves to sunlight find that the sun makes them feel better, provided they don’t use sunscreens or burn their skin. The UV-rays in sunlight actually stimulate the thyroid gland to increase hormone production, which, in turn, increases the body’s basal metabolic rate. This assists both weight loss and improved muscle development. Therefore, if you want to lose weight or increase your muscle tone, expose your body to the sun on a regular basis.
Unfortunately, it is the ultraviolet (UV) portion of sunlight that is the most easily blocked by windows, houses, spectacles, sunglasses, sun lotions and clothing. UV light is known to activate an important skin hormone called solitrol. Solitrol influences our immune system and many of our body’s regulatory centers and, in conjunction with the pineal hormone melatonin, causes changes in mood and daily biological rhythms. The hemoglobin in our red blood cells requires UV light to bind to the oxygen needed for all cellular functions. Lack of sunlight can, therefore, be held co-responsible for almost any kind of illness, including skin cancer and other forms of cancer.
I encourage you to expose yourself to sunlight – in moderation. Ultraviolet rays have many benefits; if simply spending some time in nature can improve our moods, boost our immune systems, assist our bodies’ regulatory centers and biological rhythms, and improve our overall health, why should we fear the sun?
——————————
This is an excerpt from my book HEAL YOURSELF WITH SUNLIGHT
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyperlink back to the web page
Rates of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, have been rising for at least the last three decades, and this increase has been largely blamed on exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun.
However, research published in the British Journal of Dermatology shows that the sun is likely nothing more than a scapegoat in the development of melanoma, and the sharp increase may actually be “an artifact caused by diagnostic drift.”
Melanoma Increases Due to Benign Disease, Not Sunlight
Diagnostic drift, according to the study, refers to a hefty increase in disease that is being fueled by non-cancerous lesions.
In fact, during the study period from 1991 to 2004, there were nearly 4,000 cases of melanoma included in the report, with an annual increase of 9.39 to 13.91 cases per 100,000 per year.
The researchers revealed that, rather than being fueled by increasing exposure to sunlight as is commonly suggested, the increased incidence was almost entirely due to minimal, stage 1 disease.
They noted:
“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 … 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.”
In other words, people are being diagnosed with melanoma skin cancer even when they have only a minimal, non-cancerous lesion, and these diagnoses appear to be skewing disease rates significantly. Further, adding even more credence to the growing body of evidence showing sun exposure is not the primary cause of melanoma, the researchers noted that the distribution of the lesions reported did not correspond to the sites of lesions caused by sun exposure.
They concluded:
“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.”
Is Lack of Sunlight a More Likely Culprit?
Despite all the bad press linking sun exposure to skin cancer, there’s almost no evidence at all to support it. There is, however, plenty of evidence to the contrary. Over the years, several studies have confirmed that appropriate sun exposure actually helps prevent skin cancer. In fact, melanoma occurrence has been found to decrease with greater sun exposure, and can be increased by sunscreens.
One of the most important facts you should know is that an epidemic of the disease has in fact broken out among indoor workers. These workers get three to nine times LESS solar UV exposure than outdoor workers get, yet only indoor workers have increasing rates of melanoma — and the rates have been increasing since before 1940.
There are two major factors that help explain this, and the first has to do with the type of UV exposure.
There are two primary types of UV rays from sunlight, the vitamin-D-producing UVB rays and the skin-damaging UVA light. Both UVA and UVB can cause tanning and burning, although UVB does so far more rapidly. UVA, however, penetrates your skin more deeply than UVB, and may be a much more important factor in photoaging, wrinkles and skin cancers.
A study in Medical Hypotheses suggested that indoor workers may have increased rates of melanoma because they’re exposed to sunlight through windows, and only UVA light, unlike UVB, can pass through window glass. At the same time, these indoor workers are missing out on exposure to the beneficial UVB rays, and have lower levels of vitamin D.
Researchers wrote:
“We hypothesize that one factor involves indoor exposures to UVA (321–400nm) passing through windows, which can cause mutations and can break down vitamin D3 formed after outdoor UVB (290–320nm) exposure, and the other factor involves low levels of cutaneous vitamin D3.
After vitamin D3 forms, melanoma cells can convert it to the hormone, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3, or calcitriol, which causes growth inhibition and apoptotic cell death in vitro and in vivo.
… We agree that intense, intermittent outdoor UV overexposures and sunburns initiate CMM [cutaneous malignant melanoma]; we now propose that increased UVA exposures and inadequately maintained cutaneous levels of vitamin D3 promotes CMM.”
To put it simply, UVB appears to be protective against melanoma — or rather, the vitamin D your body produces in response to UVB radiation is protective.
As written in The Lancet:
“Paradoxically, outdoor workers have a decreased risk of melanoma compared with indoor workers, suggesting that chronic sunlight exposure can have a protective effect.”
Vitamin D Helps Protect You Against Cancer
Vitamin D is a steroid hormone that influences virtually every cell in your body, and is easily one of nature’s most potent cancer fighters. So I want to stress again that if you are shunning all sun exposure, you are missing out on this natural cancer protection.
Your organs can convert the vitamin D in your bloodstream into calcitriol, which is the hormonal or activated version of vitamin D. Your organs then use it to repair damage, including damage from cancer cells and tumors. Vitamin D’s protective effect against cancer works in multiple ways, including:
Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous
This applies not only to skin cancer but other types of cancer as well. Theories linking vitamin D to certain cancers have been tested and confirmed in more than 200 epidemiological studies, and understanding of its physiological basis stems from more than 2,500 laboratory studies, according to epidemiologist Cedric Garland, DrPH, professor of family and preventive medicine at the UC San Diego School of Medicine.
Here are just a few highlights into some of the most noteworthy findings:
Some 600,000 cases of breast and colorectal cancers could be prevented each year if vitamin D levels among populations worldwide were increased, according to previous research by Dr. Garland and colleagues.
Optimizing your vitamin D levels could help you to prevent at least 16 different types of cancer including pancreatic, lung, ovarian, prostate, and skin cancers.
A large-scale, randomized, placebo-controlled study on vitamin D and cancer showed that vitamin D can cut overall cancer risk by as much as 60 percent. This was such groundbreaking news that the Canadian Cancer Society has actually begun endorsing the vitamin as a cancer-prevention therapy.
Light-skinned women who had high amounts of long-term sun exposure had half the risk of developing advanced breast cancer (cancer that spreads beyond your breast) as women with lower amounts of regular sun exposure, according to a study in theAmerican Journal of Epidemiology.
A study by Dr. William Grant, Ph.D., internationally recognized research scientist and vitamin D expert, found that about 30 percent of cancer deaths – which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States — could be prevented each year with higher levels of vitamin D.
When Using the Sun to Fight Cancer, the Dose is What Matters
When I recommend using the sun therapeutically, this means getting the proper dosage to optimize your vitamin D levels. This typically means exposing enough of your unclothed skin surface to get a slight pink color on your skin. Your exact time will vary radically depending on many variables, such as you skin color, time of day, season, clouds, altitude and age. The key principle is to never get burned, while still spending as much time as you can in the sun during the peak hours, as it is virtually impossible to overdose as long as you don’t get burned.
A common myth is that occasional exposure of your face and hands to sunlight is “sufficient” for vitamin D nutrition. For most of us, this is an absolutely inadequate exposure to move vitamin D levels to the healthy range. Further, if you use sunscreen, you will block your body’s ability to produce vitamin D!
And, contrary to popular belief, the best time to be in the sun for vitamin D production is actually as near to solar noon as possible which is 1 PM in the summer for most (due to Daylight Saving Time).. The more damaging UVA rays are quite constant during ALL hours of daylight, throughout the entire year — unlike UVB, which are low in morning and evening and high at midday.
When using the sun to maximize your vitamin D production and minimize your risk of malignant melanoma, the middle of the day (roughly between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.) is the best and safest time. During this time you need the shortest exposure time to produce vitamin D because UVB rays are most intense at this time. Plus, when the sun goes down toward the horizon, the UVB is filtered out much more than the dangerous UVA.
Once you reach this point your body will peak at about 10,000-40,000 units of vitamin D. Any additional exposure will only cause harm and damage to your skin. Most people with fair skin will max out their vitamin D production in just 10-20 minutes, or, again, when your skin starts turning the lightest shade of pink. Some will need less, others more. The darker your skin, the longer exposure you will need to optimize your vitamin D production.
Why Not Just Take Vitamin D from a Supplement?
You can get vitamin D3 in supplement form, and if sunlight or a safe tanning bed is not an option, this is a better choice than getting no vitamin D at all. If you do use a supplement, it now appears as though most adults need about 8,000 IU’s of vitamin D a day in order to get their serum levels above 40 ng/ml.
However, sunlight is really the superior source for vitamin D, as when you expose your skin to sunshine, your skin synthesizes vitamin D3 sulfate. This form of vitamin D is water soluble, unlike oral vitamin D3 supplements, which is unsulfated. The water-soluble form can travel freely in your bloodstream, whereas the unsulfated form needs LDL (the so-called “bad” cholesterol) as a vehicle of transport.
The oral non-sulfated form of vitamin D may not provide all of the same benefits as the vitamin D created in your skin from sun exposure, because it cannot be converted to vitamin D sulfate.
I believe this is a very compelling reason to really make a concerted effort to get your vitamin D requirements from exposure to sunshine, or by using a safe tanning bed (one with electronic ballasts rather than magnetic ballasts, to avoid unnecessary exposure to EMF fields). Safe tanning beds also have less of the dangerous UVA than sunlight, while unsafe ones have more UVA than sunlight. If neither of these are feasible options, then you should take an oral vitamin D3 supplement.
What Should Your Vitamin D Levels be for Cancer Protection?
In 2007 the recommended level was between 40 to 60 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml). Since then, the optimal vitamin D level has been raised to 50-70 ng/ml, and when treating cancer or heart disease, as high as 70-100 ng/ml.
I recommend you have your levels tested and regularly monitored to make sure they are in the therapeutic range. Your physician can do this for you, or another alternative is to join the D*Action study. D*Action is a worldwide public health campaign aiming to solve the vitamin D deficiency epidemic through focus on testing, education, and grassroots word of mouth.
When you join D*action, you agree to test your vitamin D levels twice a year during a five-year program, and share your health status to demonstrate the public health impact of this nutrient. There is a $60 fee each 6 months ($120/year) for your sponsorship of the project, which includes a complete new test kit to be used at home, and electronic reports on your ongoing progress.
You will get a follow up email every six months reminding you “it’s time for your next test and health survey.” To join now, please follow this link to the sign up form.
Natural Treatment for Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer
Melanoma skin cancer is the deadliest form, but far more common are non-melanoma skin cancers, which impact millions of Americans every year.
If you or someone you love is affected, a cream containing eggplant extract, known as BEC and BEC5, appears to cure and eliminate most non-melanoma skin cancers in several weeks time. Unlike conventional skin-cancer treatment, which is often surgery, the eggplant-extract cream leaves no scarring and no visible sign a tumor or lesion was ever present. The eggplant extract appears to be exceptionally safe and only kills cancerous cells, leaving healthy cells untouched, and causes only minor side effects, such as itching and burning.
The leading researcher in this area today is Dr. Bill E. Cham, who reported as early as 1991 in Cancer Letters that:
“A cream formulation containing high concentrations (10%) of a standard mixture of solasodine glycosides (BEC) has been shown to be effective in the treatment of malignant and benign human skin tumors.
We now report that a preparation … which contains very low concentrations of BEC (0.005%) is effective in the treatment of keratoses, basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) of the skin of humans. In an open study, clinical and histological observations indicated that all lesions (56 keratoses, 39 BCCs and 29 SCCs) treated with [the preparation] had regressed.”
Dr. Cham’s latest study was published in the International Journal of Clinical Medicine this year. The paper includes two impressive case reports of 60-something men who were suffering from large basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), which had plagued them for years. The results upon treatment with a cream formulation of BEC (eggplant extract) twice a day are astounding, and you can view the pictures here.
Unfortunately, simply eating eggplant, tomatoes, peppers or similar veggies, while beneficial for many reasons, will not induce this same effect because the active components are not able to effectively penetrate your cells. This requires the addition of glycosides, molecules with various simple sugars attached to them that can latch on to receptors found on skin cancer cells.
Simple Skin Cancer Prevention Strategies
What’s even better than an inexpensive, safe and natural cure for skin cancer is, of course, preventing it in the first place. Your body is made to be in the sun, and, when done properly, sun exposure will be one of the best ways you can help reduce your risk of skin, and many other forms of, cancer. Along with optimizing your vitamin D levels, the carotenoid astaxanthin has also piqued the interest of researchers due to its ability to reduce signs of aging by helping protect your skin from sun damage. I personally take 8 mg every day to help limit any potential damage from sun exposure as most of the year I am able to spend one to two hours a day in the sun.
Consuming a healthy diet full of natural antioxidants is another useful strategy to avoid sun damage to your skin, as fresh, raw, unprocessed foods deliver the nutrients that your body needs to maintain a healthy balance of omega-6 and omega-3 oils in your skin, which is your first line of defense against sunburn.
Fresh, raw vegetables also provide your body with an abundance of powerful antioxidants that will help you fight the free radicals caused by sun damage that can lead to burns and cancer.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
The entire cosmetic industry is in a buyer beware state of alert, thanks to the latest additions to the melting pot of chemicals and pollutants in skin care, above and beyond the usual parabens. Consumers are warned by experts to put on the watch list any makeup which contains synthetic coloring ingredients, emulsifiers, leads, copolymer, triclosan, and “urea as a preservative.” Also contributing to the chemical compounds are phthalates, formaldehyde, and petroleum.
Without proper regulations, especially regarding testing how chemicals react to one another in combinations, it is scary how quickly the industry has become a problem for women and men alike. Some lipsticks are loaded with lead. If you think it doesn’t matter because it’s just on your skin, think again. Deodorants and shampoo must also be included in the equation. There are plenty of solutions to the problem, but where do you begin?
Start by viewing the issues as long term consequences instead of short term benefits. In fact, there are critical trade offs when it comes to using products for beauty and hygiene that contain chemicals. Skin cancer can have roots, and the removal of them can leave scars on your nose or even around your mouth. Consumers shouldn’t count on “all natural” labels and similar advertisements because current regulations on the use of those buzzwords are almost non-existent.
In the United States, the personal care industry goes largely unregulated. For starters, the FDA has not set limits for lead in cosmetics unless the lead is used for color additives. Also many fragrances are synthetic. Ever heard of or seen on the ingredients list Diazolidinyl or Imidazolidinyl Urea? One does not have to pronounce them in order to find them on the ingredients list on the back of a box or bottle. Just set it down and keep looking.
Do not leave out the average man in the United States, who might easily put 6 to 8 personal care products on his skin repeatedly every 24 hours. Facial soaps, shampoo, conditioner and deodorants will likely contain at least one of 10 carcinogenic chemicals, and the combination of chemicals seep through the skin, into the bloodstream, creating havoc for healthy cells.
The Safe Cosmetic Act of 2010 uses terminology like aggregate exposure, vulnerable populations, and people with compromised immune systems, but it seems as though everybody fits into at least two categories. Are you still willing to take the same chances?
Synthetic colors are listed as D&C or FD&C, but even though these are regulated by the industry, they are still mostly derived from coal tar, which, when injected in lab mice, causes cancer. Many previously approved colors are now banned across the world because of known carcinogenic properties.
Dibutyl phthalate (DBP), the ingredient which provides that shiny, smooth, varnish look, comes at a steep price, and not just in dollars and cents. Banned in Europe, this dangerous toxin can pose a threat to the nervous system, even by simply inhaling the fumes. Women who sit and relax at salons and boutiques for hours on end might even feel intoxicated when they exit. Pregnant women especially beware. The long term effects include impaired fetal development and deformed male reproductive organs.
Triclosan is found in more than a handful of cosmetics, and now even in toothpaste, because it’s supposed to kill bacteria. Triclosan was initially developed as a surgical scrub for medical professionals, and not for putting around your eyes or for scrubbing your teeth and gums daily, but somehow the FDA has approved it for general consumption.
Here come two more ingredients the average human being cannot pronounce. Diethanolamine and Triethanolamine, more easily recognized as DEA and TEA, used extensively for emulsifying products. Combine the two chemicals, and if you’re a scientist, you’re watching the lab rats die from cancerous tumors. The only “panel of experts” out there recommends you only use them in small doses, but what about the cumulative effect that builds up over time and from the laundry list of products that contain them?
Many synthetic nail colors, lipsticks, sunscreens and whitening toothpastes now contain lead and other metals. Titanium dioxide is found in concealers and even diaper ointments. Some metals are used for color, and certain kinds of lip glosses even contain aluminum compounds. The infamous D&C Red 6 may contain mercury and arsenic in addition to the lead. Also, zinc is used in moisturizers, which clogs pores, preventing them from breathing properly.
Petrolatum is basically petroleum and is commonly found in moisturizers. It forms an oily layer on the skin which blocks moisture evaporation. Just as aluminum in antiperspirants dangerously blocks and traps sweat, petroleum has adverse effects on skin; however, since it’s so cheap for makeup manufacturers, it’s even found in baby creams and wax depilatories.
Now in 2011, there are well over 200 ingredients under the umbrella term “fragrance,” and manufacturers are not required to disclose any of the actual ingredients in their formulas. Don’t lose hope though, because there are natural, non-toxic preservatives that are both safe and effective.
In the long term, you are saving a fortune when you buy truly natural and organic products in comparison to the health care costs of future treatments, including surgery from using toxins on your face and body. Along with consumer education comes the gradual phase out of the bad guys in the natural skin care industry. Word combinations like sodium lauryl sulfate aren’t so hard to pronounce anymore.
To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines
Healing Chronic Dermatological Condition Around the Eyes
Hi, this is with regards to a person seeking healing information for chronic dermatological condition around her eyes and when I looked at the picture I clearly saw that the there is major congestion in the eyes, very puffy eyes, the eyelids are very puffed up and it clearly shows that there is a lymph drainage issue where lymph that contain metabolic waste products and dead cell material is not readily removed from the eyes and this has really nothing to do with the eyes themselves, eyes have no capability of creating swollenness around the eyes, there is just no treatment to improve that except by going to the root causes.
And when lymph drainage issues occur where water and toxins and waste products are retained around the eyes that shows that the kidneys are not capable in removing all the fluids from the system and the lymphatic system itself is congested and the congestion in the lymphatic system always finds its source, its main area of congestion in the belly button area and that is the abdominal area where the central part of the lymph system exists.
It is called cisterna chyli vessel system and it is connected to all the lymph vessels that come from the legs, that come from the abdominal region, from the organs like kidneys and the stomach, small intestine, large intestine, the liver, the spleen, so all those organs drain their own metabolic waste products into this giant pool so to say of lymph where these waste products that are passed into these areas are supposed to be detoxified and once the lymph has been detoxified and waste matter has been broken down or removed then the lymph can move into the blood stream near the heart and the problem is that the main center part, the cisterna chyli vessel, being congested will also lead to accumulation of waste products in other areas that are distant from this cisterna chyli vessel. There is particularly one duct, it is called the thoracic duct, and that duct moves from the belly button area all the way up to the throat area and the thoracic duct is responsible from draining out the parts of the facial area and eyes and if the thoracic duct is clogged out because of the abdominal lymph is congested then the lymph drainage from the eyes is not adequate and the eyes start to swell out.
So instead of targeting the symptoms thinking there is something wrong with the eyes one should put the attention on the lymph congestion, why does the lymph , the lymphatic system get clogged up and the answer to that is because we are not digesting food properly when food is remaining undigested or improperly digested it is being decomposed, it is fermented or putrefied that means the bacteria that decompose the foods produce poisons , toxins, and these toxins are absorbed into the lymphatic system around the belly button area so this necessitates an accumulation of fluid, lymph fluid, water, mostly water, in order to keep some of these toxins neutral and in this way the body at least it is protected of these toxins moving freely into the blood stream which can cause serious consequences such as blood poisoning and the body is very protective of the blood so wants to make sure that there is as much neutralization through water retention as possible in order to keep the bodies tissue from being damaged. So these swollen eyelids and puffy eyes is actually a protective mechanism that temporarily helps the eyes, it protects the eyes in this instance, and should not be misconstrued as being an illness and it should not be targeted through methods that are not really dealing with the root cause of the problem and the digestion itself is a very much controlled by the liver so it takes us back to how much bile the liver is capable of producing or not producing, if the person makes very little bile, food is not digested properly and you have intestinal congestion that leads to lymphatic congestion which in turn can create these localized disturbances in different parts of the body such as the eyes.
So, liver flushes are very useful in this respect plus changing the diet stop eating lymph congesting foods such as cheese, milk, sugar and animal proteins like meat, chicken, fish, eggs and so on, so, by not having those foods a lot of the lymph congestion disappears very quickly and this should be seen in a diminishment of the congestion around the eyes.
I hope this helps and I wish you a great day.
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page
Hi, this is with regard to your question whether sunscreens are still useful or beneficialin some respect… and I tend to negate that. Sunscreens have notoriously been shown to create problems and not just to the skin but to the rest of the body. Mind you that most of the sunscreens that exist are synthetically produced chemicals that have carcinogenic effects so it is not just that you put this stuff on your skin, but it goes actually into your blood and once it is carried to the liver, a lot of strong reactions can occur that can lead to bile duct congestion and then poor blood circulation to the skin itself which can weaken it and make it, in fact, prone to injury against, from, ultraviolet radiation particularly UV-A rays.
Now sunscreens do not always work the way they are designed to work, many times you have areas in the skin that are not completely covered and even if the sunscreens block out the UV-A and the UV-B, there will still be areas where UV-A penetration is coming though, goes very, very deeply. One you block UV-B with sunscreens, UV-A goes so much deeper than it is normally possible and that can create damage to skin cells. There has been no proof however that UV-A can destroy or can damage the genes directly, in fact, the opposite is true it has been proven that sunlight and UV radiation cannot cause genetic mutation leading to skin cancers.
So there is a lot of misconception in this field and I want to clarify as well, that in places where sunscreens are used on a mandatory basis, like a town for example in Australia, where every single person is putting sunscreens on their skin and they have the highest skin cancer rates in the world!!! And places where sunscreens are not used at all, you go, for example, to places in Italy where Italians, they just do not even know about sunscreens, they do not put it on their skin and they have virtually no skin cancers in those areas. Also near the Equator in Caribbean countries, people living there rarely ever have skin cancers.
Besides, skin cancers occur to the most extent in areas of the skin that are never even exposed to the sun, so that cannot be explained that way, by saying we were using sunscreens. Most people do not put it under the arms or in the buttocks area or in places where they are covered up by swimsuits anyway. So the idea that the sun causes skin cancer is so unscientific, it has nothing to do with the reality of the matter and again, there is no scientific proof as yet to show after so many years trying to that, the sun causes skin cancer.
On the other had there is research to show that indirectly, sunglasses, having sunshades on the eyes, can contribute to skin cancer and how does that happen? Well there is a powerful hormone in the brain that responds to light, and so when you put sunshades or sunglasses and you are out in the nature and the sun does shine, your body does not recognize that it is light outside and it will stop the production of melanin which is the natural sunscreen of the body, and if the melanin is not produced sufficiently, then the UV-A rays and UV-B, which are responsible for, the latter… responsible for sunburn, if you get over exposed, then you can develop damage to the skin. So again, one has to look at what is natural and what is not.
Sunglasses are not natural, if we had a need for them we would have been born with sunshades in our eyes, in the lenses of our eyes, but we are not supposed to do that, we are supposed to trigger the production of melanin as soon as we are exposed to the sun and that protects our skin against any potential harm from the sun.
There are some body types that are prevalent in countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway – very, very light skin color, reddish skin tones, they are called Pitta types, the most prone to the heat and any form of heat that includes heat from the sun, the Pitta types, and I have discussed that in great detail in my book in “HEAL YOURSELF WITH SUNLIGHT” and also in “TIMELESS SECRETS OF HEALTH AND REJUVENATION” which discuses the different body types and the Pitta body type is the only one that has to be more careful about going into the sun for various reasons and one of which is to not over heat, very important for the pitta type, he needs to be more in cold places. They still benefit from being out in nature and exposing the skin indirectly to the sun, there is still ultra violet radiation even in the shade but for them it is very important to do that as well. Having said that, because otherwise they do not develop vitamin D production which is by the steroid hormone that regulates numerous functions in the body, controls thousands of genes and it is also responsible for making sure that skin cancer does not occur.
The imbalance that many people experience when they do get exposed to the sun and get skin damage or reddening or burning, it is more likely because of an acid-forming diet and lifestyle, eating fats, for example, that are derived from fried foods, refined foods, hydrogenated vegetable oils particularly damaging to the skin, and once ultra violet radiation combines with these trans fatty acids that are in the skin membranes, then there can be a very strong reaction… basically a reaction to get rid of some of these fatty acids which, as they make their way out through the skin, can cause damage or healing reactions which are known to be skin problems.
So the skin problem or the eruption or even the skin cancer is not really a disease it is corrective mechanism and it is important to differentiate between a disease and a healing response. So when the body is trying to get rid of the carcinogenic chemicals contained in the sunscreens, then that is a natural normal reaction, the skin tries to shed these poisons , chemicals, that cause inflammation of skin cells.
So, having said that, there is just something that came in the news this morning that professors of dermatology now even recommend that people put the sunscreen on before they go to bed in the evening or even a month before they plan to go out in the sun. Which is horrific because putting these deadly chemicals, if they were ingested through the food a person will become poisoned, but it is irresponsible to make people and young children to absorb poisons even faster through the skin.
The skin can absorb so many chemicals that normally could not cause as much damage as if you ingested them with your food. So it is very, very risky advice to tell people they need to use sunscreen. There are some oils that have protective effects… like coconut oil… which is much preferable than any of the UV blocking chemicals found in sunscreens.
Thank you.
——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page
Nearly all skin diseases such as eczema, acne and psoriasis, have one factor in common: gallstones in the liver. Almost every person with a skin disease also has intestinal problems and impure blood, in particular. These are mainly caused by gallstones and the harmful effects they have on the body as a whole. Gallstones contribute to numerous problems throughout the body – particularly in the digestive, circulatory and urinary systems. In its attempt to eliminate what the colon, kidneys, lungs, liver and lymphatic system were unable to remove or detoxify, the skin becomes flooded and overburdened with acidic waste. Although it is the largest organ of elimination in the body, it eventually succumbs to the acid assault. The toxic material is first deposited in the connective tissue underneath the dermis. When this ‘waste depot’ is saturated, the skin begins to malfunction.
Excessive amounts of noxious substances, cell debris, microbes from different sources, such as gallstones, and various antigens from improperly digested foods congest the lymphatic system and inhibit proper lymph drainage from the various layers of the skin. The toxins and putrefying protein from damaged or destroyed skin cells attract microbes and become a source for constant irritation and inflammation of the skin. Skin cells begin to suffer malnutrition, which may greatly reduce their normal interval of turnover (about once every month). This may also cause extensive damage to skin nerves.
If the sebaceous glands, which pour their secretion, sebum, into the hair follicles, become nutrient deficient, hair growth becomes abnormal and, in particular, scalp hair may fall out. When melanin supply becomes deficient, the hair turns gray. Sebum deficiency also alters the healthy texture of the hair and makes it look dull and unattractive. On the skin, sebum acts as a bactericidal and fungicidal agent, preventing the invasion of microbes. It also prevents drying and cracking of the skin, especially when exposed to sunshine and hot, dry air.
Genetic predisposition towards developing baldness or any other skin disorders is not a major causative factor, as is often assumed. Healthy skin functions are restored and hair growth, particularly among women, is returned to normal once all gallstones are removed and the colon and kidneys/bladder are kept clean.
