Before I begin, I would like to apologize for the errors and bad writing in the last post. I was uploading from McDonald’s at the beach and didn’t finish editing before I lost the connection.
By the late nineties, the scientific evidence was clear that sunscreen and sun-block were not preventing skin cancer. The UVA rays were not being stopped from penetrating the skin was a skin cancer issue. Also the many claims by the pharma’s that their products would stop skin cancer were not confirmed so the FDA asked for label changes to drop the cancer prevention claims. There is no scientific evidence that sunscreen stops melanoma. The FDA’s request failed in the courts in 2000 as John Roberts, present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, ruled that the FDA could not stop the manufacturers from making the outrageous claims about cancer prevention. This ruling was in direct violation of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994 about no substance can claim it will prevent, cure, or treat disease without it being called a drug and following all the rules for drugs.
Move forward another decade, the FDA has been able to get the sunscreen industry to make label changes. You may view the detail of the changes and even watch some video shorts of their reasons for making the changes at the FDA website. The videos deal with the two types of frequencies and how the sunscreens will now be required to reduce the UVA rays as well. Also the word ‘sun-block’ will no longer be allowed for use on the label because this is a complete exaggeration, or if you prefer – lie. Also the word waterproof will no longer be allowed because all lotion will eventually lose its integrity. The words ‘Broad Spectrum’ in addition to the SPF number will be required to show that the sunscreen slows UVA rays as well UVB. These changes take place in June of 2012, this month.
Dr. Gorham in his video that we have been referring to, Skin Cancer/Sunscreen – the Dilemma, shows that the chemicals used to slow UVA only works in the frequency range that is closer to the UVB. It does not work in the more intense energy frequency range of UVA that is closer to the violet spectrum of visible light. This means that the slowing of the UVA energy by new ‘Broad Spectrum’ sunscreen may not be adequate to prevent skin cancer. The visible spectrum then continues into the color ranges of indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red. To remember the light spectrum you may use the mnemonic name Roy G. Biv. Of course going in shorter wavelength of spectrum you have UVA, UVB, UVC, x-rays, and gamma radiation.
My question is what happens to the energy of the UVA that is being slowed by the chemicals. Does it re-radiate into the longer UVA wavelengths. It is my belief that the only way the sunscreens will ever protect us is to have a lotion that will radiate the UV energy into the visible spectrum. This would be a really ‘cool’ product as well as you could see of the person glow in violet and indigo as they are exposed to UV radiation. The kids would love this. Let’s see how long before this suggestion finds its way onto the shelves. Of course there are sunscreens that reflect the UV radiation with products that have either titanium dioxide or zinc oxide. These typically look white on the skin and are not consider pleasing to the eye. However, they may be even more effective than dark pigmented skin in preventing melanoma. All UV reduction products prevent the formation of vitamin D!
As a last thought on the FDA, why did the label changes not include a warning that UVB reduction products will prevent an essential nutrient from forming, vitamin D, or more importantly an essential hormone? -1 It would seem that if the government was really concerned about health, especially with the high incidence of osteoporosis it would not want vitamin D in the population reduced.
Now as I am thinking about it there are many other oddities by government in the vitamin D arena. The IOM’s Food and Nutrition Board totally discounted all the evidence pointing toward the prevention of over two hundred other diseases and said there was enough vitamin D in the population to prevent osteoporosis and plainly stated they only considered bone health. -2 The FNB violated the National Academy of Science strict conflict of interest policy without action by the US or Canada for breach of contract. -3 The division of HHS for Research and Health Quality did not separate the studies provided to the FNB for vitamin D3 versus vitamin D2 (confusion by complexity). -4 Our now Chief Justice, John Roberts, ruled in 2000 that the FDA could not stop the outrageous lie that skin cancer was prevented by sunscreen thus increasing the use of sunscreen. -5 Why was this ruling not challenged in the Supreme Court as a violation of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994? -6 Health and Human Services will not allow the use of mandates in the health industry because markets are more important than your health – former Secretary Leavitt’s words. -7 The class action lawsuit of 2006 against the sunscreen industry for their lack of truth about sunscreen was basically dropped with a small payment (less than fifty thousand) to the National Cancer Institute, a US agency – odd as NCI did not initiate the lawsuit. – 8 Does the US health industry increase from five percent of GDP in 1960 to over eighteen percent of GDP in 2009 without the manipulation of a large sick population? -9 Is there a conspiracy going on? Yes I used the word and this is not the first time it has been used in relation to vitamin D. The US Government used it when they took 16 multinationals to court for conspiracy in manipulating the vitamin D market in the 1940’s. Now is that same government intimately involved? Just asking the questions – I know vitamin D professionals cannot ask the questions without fear of their careers. – Pandemic Survivor