Category Archives: sunscreen

Playing in the Sun – Skin Cancer Awareness Month

Posted on by
Reply

It has started again with the promotion of sunscreen over health.  Do you think that CBS would have published this article if it wasn’t for all the advertising given to them by Merck Pharmaceutical, owner of Coppertone – “Study: Increased Risk for Young People and Skin Cancer.”  Coppertone was formerly owned by Schering-Plough.  Consider this short story of a couple of baby boomers –

Jack and Mary were teenage sweethearts in the mid sixties.  They continued to be in love and got married.  They had two children, Alice and Frank, and life was great as they both decided to become computer programmers and lived a life of abundance of wealth.   Their favorite pass time was to go to the beach to spend lots of time in the sun.  They even made many trips to the Caribbean during the winter as they had the means.  It was great fun and relaxation from all the time that they spent in front of the computer.

The many warnings by her dermatologist and by Disney and Schering-Plough through the Sun Safety Alliance with the slogan ‘block the sun not the fun’ concerned Mary greatly as she did not want to get skin cancer or have her skin wrinkle with age.  She really enjoyed spending time on the beach and going to amusement parks where she could spend lots of time in the sun.  She decided to use the sun screen that was recommended by her dermatologist.  Mary was rigorous to keep it on the kids to be sure that they did not get burned.

Jack was a free spirit and really did not like to have ‘some old lotion’ put on his body.  He would spend time in the sun but when it was apparent that he was getting too much, he would seek shade.  He got a lot of grief about not wanting to go into the sun except when it felt good.  He would always seek shelter under a beach umbrella or in the shade at the amusement parks so as to not cause too much unrest in his family.  Frank was just like his dad and wanted to do everything that his father did in just the same way.  Mary tried to keep sunscreen on him but he would refuse until she gave up.  She figured it was okay as long as he wanted to stay in the shade with his dad.

Alice was just like her mother.  She thought that it was great that she could use the lotion to save her skin and spend lots of time in the sun instead of like her stupid brother that had to go the shade as he started to turn red.

Life was great for a while until Alice started to develop asthma.  It was constant trips to the emergency room as she just could not breathe.  She did not react well to the steroids that she was being given but eventually she seemed to get the asthma under control with ‘designer pharmaceuticals’.  During her college years she had a herniated disc that was resolved with an operation on her lumbar region.  Later as she had just graduated from college it was discovered that she had MS and within a month lung cancer.  At about this same time Mary was diagnosed with a severe form of melanoma.  They both died within a year of each other.

Jack and Frank did not understand why life had dealt them such a hardship.  They had tried to live a healthy life.  How could it have happen to them in this way?

Don’t be like Alice and Mary.  Educate yourself before you throw on all that sunscreen.  If you watch Dr. Gorham’s video to figure out why Mary died from melanoma, you most likely will never wear sunscreen again.  Skin Cancer/Sunscreen – the Dilemma,  “Time for the Sun” posted June, 2012:

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 took place in June of 2012.

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 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!

Go play in the sun this summer and have great fun.  But please educate yourself to what sunscreen can do to you if you don’t know about how to use it.  You would be much better to be like Jack and Frank and never use it.  – Pandemic Survivor

Time for the Sun – Protection

Posted on by
1

“With the introduction of sunscreen, our relationship with the sun has changed forever.”

In the last several posts we have discussed the issues with sunscreen.  To be clear, sunscreen will somewhat protect you from skin cancer that is not life threatening like basal cell carcinoma, but there is no evidence that it stops melanoma.  Betting you life on a chemical rubbed on the skin is risky business.  If you have to spend a lot of time in the sun, then your best protection is to allow your skin to become tan and wear clothing and hats to protect yourself.  If you must use a cream to protect your skin, then use the type that has titanium dioxide or zinc oxide to reflect the UV away.

The use of sunscreens does not stop melanoma.  This is the reason that the melanoma rate is so high in Australia.  The ozone layer thickens over that area of the earth and acts just like the older sunscreens in allowing all the UVA through and blocking the UVB.  In other words, the amount of vitamin D production is reduced and the opportunity for skin cancer has increased.  This is our current relationship with the sun because of sunscreen use.

Annesofie Faurschou, M.D., Ph.D., of Bispebjerg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark, and colleagues conducted a study on vitamin D production when using sunscreen.  They used the recommended amount suggested by the World Health Organization to prevent burning of 2 mg/cm­3. (if I did the math right that would be about 1250 mg/in2 – sorry about the mixed units – about a tenth of an ounce for every three square inches)  At the recommended amount there was no significant increase in serum vitamin D.  The article was published in April online in the British Journal of Dermatology.  Here is a summary from the DoctorsLounge.com 

Using sunscreen is like a double whammy for your health.  It will not stop melanoma unless it is the type with mineral filler.  It prevents you from making vitamin D that is required for health.  This has been the condition of the population for the last fifty years.  To think that fair skin populations have had a ten-fold increase in the melanoma rate over the last fifty years is very concerning.  Australia’s promotion of sun protection did not seem to help the problem because of misinformation about chemical sunscreens.  Your best experience in the sun is to not burn first and do not depend on sunscreen to prevent cancer as it may make it worse.

Do go into the sun when the UVB is the highest for the best results for vitamin D production between the hours of 11 am to 2 pm.  Do not allow yourself to be burned by the sun.  After an adequate time for vitamin D production, protect your skin with clothes and hats.  Embrace our long heritage in receiving life from the sun – enjoy it.  – Pandemic Survivor

Time for the Sun – The FDA Intrudes

Posted on by
Reply

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

Time for the Sun – A Tale of Two Frequencies

Posted on by
2

Sunshine is so refreshing and cleansing that we absolutely love to go into the sun.  It is our source of physical energy as we know it.  In fact, just about everything that we can think of in our physical existence derives its energy from the sun.  There are multiple frequencies of energy that arrive from the sun onto the earth.  Warmth comes from infrared rays as it touches our skins and interacts with all physical matter to transfer heat.  Biologically, there are two frequencies in the ultra violet range that concerns us most:  UVA and UVB.  These rays have a significant impact on our skin.  Of course this blog is primarily about the UVB rays and how that generates cholecalciferol for healing, more commonly known as vitamin D3, from the cholesterol in our skin.

Originally, the concern for sunburn brought about the desire for a chemical that would keep us from burning, but yet would allow our bare skin to be exposed to the sun because of the great feeling that it gives us.  Up to this time, it had always been understood that spending gradually more time in the sun would allow the tanning process to take place until you reached the point where you could stay in the sun as long as you liked without concern for being burned.  Of course the population spent a lot of time outside so it was natural for your skin to tan as the intensity of UV increased with the movement of the sun toward summertime.  But then, with the invention of modern conveniences, much more time was spent inside.  When people decided it was time to travel to the lower latitudes or just simply go into a bright early summer sun they burned.

The first lotions were about tanning and not so much about preventing sunburn.  I remember well in the early sixties my siblings talking about what was the best tanning solution.  It seemed that ‘baby oil’ with iodine added was considered a great aid for tanning and would give you the richest deepest tan.  That was when the industry introduced the little girl on the beach with the dog pulling on her pants that we still see on a popular brand of lotion today.  This of course was done to show the difference in skin tone between ‘skin covered’ with fabric versus ‘the glorious tan’ provided by the product.  Dr. Gorham shows this in his presentation that we discussed from last post. Skin Cancer/Sunscreen – the Dilemma

This brings us to the increase of skin cancer that started to occur with the use of chemical lotions on our skin.  Dr. Gorham shows how this increase in skin cancer is directly correlated to the increased use of chemicals on our skin.  He goes on to show that the thick ozone layer over Australia acts just like sunscreen.  Of course he explains that just because there is correlation does not mean that there is causation, but the important point is that without correlation there cannot be causation.   It appears that the effect of sunscreen is the primary cause of the increase in skin cancer.

Until the late nineties, the sunscreen only stopped the penetration of UVB because this was the frequency that seemed to cause the sunburn.  It was then decided, perhaps, the UVA was causing the increase in skin cancer.  Dr. Gorham provides convincing scientific evidence this is the case as he points to another scientist’s work.  The platy fish contracts melanoma when UVB is blocked and UVA is allowed through. His contention is the primary cause for the increase in skin cancer is from how the sunscreen products prevented UVB penetration and increased the amount of UVA.

The chemicals that were used as sunscreen cause the energy from the UVB to reradiate (re-radiation works like fluorescing paints that we use on our highways and for other uses) in the UVA frequency so that there was more energy in the more deeply penetrating UVA rays.  This certainly seems to be the case.  If you think about how tanning works to allow the melanin to cover the nucleus of the cell for protection, the increase in UVA energy was defeating our natural mechanism for protection.  Think of a fortress that is being overrun by so many enemies that the moat and the fortified buttresses are not enough to keep them out.  Tanning works great to prevent skin cancer because people with lots of melanin and deep skin tone have the least amount of skin cancer.

Enough of this for the moment, I am off to the beach to enjoy the sun.  I would suggest that you do the same.  Get off you computer and go into the sun.   – Pandemic Survivor

Time for the Sun

Posted on by
3

The brilliant delightful sun splashes through misty clouds calling for you to come enjoy the warmth and renewal of too many days trapped inside.  A prisoner to long winters, your computer, too much tv, and an oppressive medical industry telling you that you will get skin cancer if you so choose to enjoy time in the sun.  But you feel in your bones the need to relax and bask and feel the health and energy as you soak up the rays.  There completing the task that has to be done outside or just relaxing with your favorite beverage (mine is a tonic water with you a splash of grapefruit juice and a lime) in a lounge chair out by the ocean with the waves splashing at your feet.  Every cell in your body soaks up the joy being poured into every pore of your being as a few minutes in the radiance becomes a spiritual renewal as well.  And still the drone of the medical industry disrupts our joy of the sun – “you’ll get cancer if you spend too much time in the sun you bad person.”

What are we supposed to do with fifty years of warnings about spending too much time in the sun when we know that it renews us?  Despite the warnings skin cancer rates have gone up five-fold since the fifties and ten-fold in the Nordic countries.  It is almost like a self full filling prophecy about getting cancer if you go into the sun.  Why has there been this large increase in cancer when we have spent less time in the sun and always wear sunscreen?  The effort that has gone into warnings in Australia has not been helpful as skin cancer rates have continued to increase.  What about tanning booths?  Do they really cause skin cancer if used properly and do they give us the same kind of tan and benefit as we get from the sun?  All of this confusion when all we wanted is to have the renewal that we know the sun provides.  The killers of joy and health belong to the rays from the sun or the warnings of the medical industry and chemical exposure in sunscreen?

We will try to explore these issues over the next several posts and try to reach an explanation as to why the skin cancer rates have gone up.  In the meantime, I would suggest that you watch this excellent presentation by Edward Gorham, PhD as he discusses the dilemma of skin cancer and sunscreen use.  This presentation is provided through the efforts of Grass Roots Health, a community of vitamin D researchers, and University of California public tv.  Skin Cancer/Sunscreen – the Dilemma, the forty-five minute discussion leads you through the different type of rays of the sun, why sunscreen has missed the mark over the last fifty years, and perhaps has even made matters worse.

What to look forward to for future post of spending time in the sun:
New changes to sunscreen by the FDA effective in June
How to enjoy the sun and protection that is required or not
Suggestions on artificial tanning

In the meantime, get as naked as you possibly can without getting locked up or insulting the neighbors and go into the sun.  – Pandemic Survivor

Lies, Damn Lies, and Vitamin D

Posted on by

Where did we go so wrong with sunshine and vitamin D?  Were these just people in the medical professions ignoring the facts as they concentrated each day on how to heal chronic disease?  If they were truly concentrating on chronic disease, why wasn’t the pharmacology of vitamin D studied more for determining how it could possibly help to heal disease?

This is a lot of questions considering the millions of people who have died of these diseases in the twentieth century.  How can we make sense of this without considering that just maybe some misdirection was happening?  In the early forties, one researcher made the statement that the amount of skin cancer that was prevented by staying out of the sun was minor compared to all the other cancers that could be prevented by going into the sun.  What happened to him and why wasn’t this line of research pursued?

Well it seems that there was some fear going on by those who held intellectual property rights to vitamin D and how it could be used to treat disease.  Supplements that you could buy over the counter had been made with extremely small amounts of vitamin D to the point that it was not beneficial for use.  It seems that the manufacturers thought that these supplements would interfere with their sales of prescription drugs.  I suspect there was also the thought that there were other applications like cancer that could be treated and prevented with higher amounts and the dollar signs were going off in their eyes.

The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation held the rights to the vitamin D patents and licensed them to anyone who wanted to make vitamin D products.  It seems that they were trying to manage the license to maximize profits without concern of what they were doing to the health of the community.

The government brought suit against WARF and 17 other entities for trust violations on vitamin D in 1944.  It appears that there was ‘arbitrary and unreasonable prices’ and limited the potency of preparations so that it would not compete with their pharmaceutical products.  Now since this was when WWII was raging, I doubt that anyone in the press was paying too much attention.  What were a few kids with rickets not being able to get the vitamin D they needed as opposed to all that was going on with the war?

The settlement in the case happened when WARF turned over the patents for public use.  Here is the headline from the NY Times in 1946:

VITAMIN D PATENTS GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC; U.S. Court Decree Ends Civil Anti-Trust Suit Against Wisconsin Foundation PROHIBITIVE COST CITED Asst. Dist. Attorney Says Persons Who Most Needed Rickets Cure  Were Unable to Get It

Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES
January 15, 1946, Tuesday
Page 16

CHICAGO, Jan. 14–Patents controlling Vitamin D, the so called “Sunshine Vitamin,” which prevents and cures rickets, became public property today when Federal Judge John P. Barnes signed a consent judgment terminating a civil anti-trust suit filed last October against the Wisconsin Alumni Foundation and seventeen other defendants.

You can purchase the article from the NEW YORK TIMES archives.

It seems that this brought an end to the misadventure with vitamin D as far as rickets was concerned.  The patents had become public property so that anyone could make D3 and the market place would make the vitamin readily available to those who needed it.  But then THE LIE began to be perpetuated about how D3 and D2 were equal in the human body in the 1930’s.  This was great news for WARF because they continued to control the rights for many D analogs and perhaps D2 as well.  D2 is not a natural substance in the body as it is made from irradiating fungus.

But of great concern is that the beneficial findings on vitamin D and its effect on chronic disease were not published because WARF wanted to protect its intellectual property.  It appears that letting people die was okay as long as WARF protected its property.  You can hear a recent presentation at youtube where Hector De Luca, professor of biochemistry UWM, describes this very thing.  You can hear how wonderful the drug has been to Wisconsin in funding research but says nothing about how many people died because they did not publish the beneficial findings.  Vitamin D, the New Old Wonder Drug:   Listen to the introduction about how many vitamin D analogs have made life wonderful for millions of people and profited WARF.  It just makes me angry as this protection of an institution for profit brought much disease that led to pain and death to others in not telling how just plain vitamin D3 would get the job done.  All very legal and deadly! It looks like the thing that they were sued for in 1944 is still going on in a different format.

If you really wanted to protect your patents on vitamin D analogs and improve your market size, how would you do it?  You certainly would not want to report how good a job just plain old vitamin D3 would do as this is the least expensive of the supplements on the market.  If people got replete with D and 75% of chronic disease disappeared what would happen to the medical industry?  After all, it has a right to protect itself and its growth.

You know what would really be great for the growth of this industry would be to figure out some way to keep people out of the sun.  If we can’t keep them out of the sun at least figure out a way to prevent the skin from making vitamin D.  Remember that cute little girl with her ‘hiney’ showing bright white as the dog pulled her paints down from the 1960’s?  And here is Plough, Inc. finding a great new market for selling a consumer product that would be really beneficial to millions to reduce burns and prevent skin cancer – sunscreen – the DAMN LIE.

It did prevent sun burns and this was great for the entertainment industry and all the ‘fun parks’ that were being developed because people could stay out in the sun longer and spend more money.  However, since sunscreen was presented in the sixties, the rate of skin cancer has gone up about two fold or more.(See Note 1.)  There is a great article in To You Health called, “ The Sunscreen Dilemma”,  by Jacob Schor, ND. For further reading you may also consider this as well hypothesis about melanoma from 1993: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8287144 .  The increase of many other chronic diseases has been documented during the same period.  The vector of vitamin D3 in so many chronic diseases is amazing and I suspect the number one cause of the increase in chronic disease.  The second being exposure to so many industrial chemicals that in some cases are put into our foods and call ‘food’.

So Plough did really well in the sixties selling Coppertone and its Dr Scholl’s line of foot products.  So what if you created a market by keeping people out of the sun and increasing chronic disease – how could you profit from it?   By developing and selling drugs for treating chronic disease.  So Schering  a company that specialized in drugs to treat chronic disease merged with Plough in 1971 to form Schering-Plough, Inc.   In a recent review of SP’s annual report it was interesting to note that 20 percent of their income was from their sunscreen products and 80 percent was from statins, hypertensive, chemotherapy, and other drugs for treating chronic disease.  It was the ‘70’s when the push for really using sunscreen products truly began and it was a great marketing campaign to sell pharmaceuticals for treating chronic disease.  What—?

Now with a pending class action suit that was filed against SP and others in California in 2006 and at least one study coming back to show that sunscreen may actually make the incidence of skin cancer worse, Schering-Plough sells out to Merck.  Now I suspect depending on how the common stock was handled that the liability exposure was significantly reduced by this acquisition.

Ah, lies, damn lies, and the conforming to the institution for protection of the institution truly is evil as described by M. Scott Peck in ‘People of the Lie” when empathy is not taken into consideration.  Dr. John Cannell of the Vitamin D Council simply says that we have ignored the facts over the years.  I say that we have ignored the facts as negligent misadventure with intent to profit from death and disease.

GO INTO THE SUN AND DO NOT WEAR SUNSCREEN.  STAY ONLY LONG ENOUGH UNTIL YOU JUST START TO TURN PINK.  WEAR THE LEAST AMOUNT OF CLOTHES POSSIBLE DURING THE MIDDAY SUN. IN THE WINTER USE TANNING BEDS OR SUPPLEMENT WITH VITAMIN D3.           – Pandemic Survivor

Note 1:  Skin cancer rates from 1975 to 1995 annual percentage rate increase was 5.1 percent.  Given that the natural logarithm of 2 times 100 is about 70.  70/5.1 = 13.7 years to double.  So at 28 years we would have a factor of times 4. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/othskin.html   SEER fact sheet on skin cancer.