You think you’re doing your health a favor by avoiding the sun? The data tells a very different story, and it starts with 29,518 women who did exactly that.
In my opinion this article UNFAIRLY vililfies the dermatologists who specialized in Mohs surgery. The REAL VILLAINS are the Medical Associations who allow Medical Schools to keep providing training in this field, even though it is overcrowded. Some of the best students are encouraged to specialize in Mohs, and only find out after training, that "private equity" is gobbling up practices and pushing their hired derms and Mohs surgeons to find cancer. Reimbursementfor Mohs procedures has decreased in the last eight or so years. Where the MODEL FAILS is Private equity. It should NOT be allowed in Medicine, (nor in Housing). It is model that runs on cutting costs, pushing the doctors to meet certain "production" goals, and removes them if they don't.
A lucrative area you might want to look at is the reimbursement for Colonoscopies, which has been a cash cow for over 30 years.
I take astazanthin and have cut out seed oils, replaced with MCT, omega 3, olive oil, avocado.
Also do a daily 10,000 D3 with 100 K2. Outside a lot. Rarely burn..see my derm doc for yearly screening. He says "Nice seeing you..now go away!" But, I was an OR Nurse for 35+ yrs and saw firsthand how awful melanoma can be..
Just pull up a world map of melanoma deaths. If the sun causes melanoma, one should see more melanoma deaths at the equator than in Russia. This is EXACTLY the opposite of what is shown. Deaths from melanoma increase the farther from the equator that one lives. Maybe all the people get melanoma at the equator and then move to Russia of Finland. LOL
I have been out in the sunshine for hours every day all of my life and I have never ever put on sunscreen or suntan lotion and I have never ever had any skin cancers of any kind.
Someone here said to not blame dermatologists but the Medical Schools that keep knocking them out. Excuse me? People enter enter tbe field largely to get rich on unsuspecting clients. Their N bottles are nothing but frozen ATM machines. $80,80,80,80 BAM! Another $500 hr customer. They are ALL GUILTY. Period.
Through this article, The Vigilant Fox is doing exactly what it is accusing the medical community of doing - creating fear to cause a reaction. Most significantly, it creates all of this fear about using sunscreen and over-diagnosis of skin cancer, but it doesn’t offer any solutions. I have fair skin, blue eyes and blond hair. I get sunburned very easily and have had numerous basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas removed via mohs surgery. So, what am I supposed to do - stop using sunscreen, get sunburned and develop more skin cancer that needs to be removed? Or apply sunscreen? If you are going to sound alarms, offer alternatives.
Whatever is put on the skin enters the bloodstream in 30 - 60 seconds...and the chemicals in sunscreen stress the internal organs. Many things people unknowingly do on a daily basis stress the natural immune system and slow down its ability to defend one's body. One's diet especially is a major daily stress...Processed food with its chemicals stress the immune.system with every bite Even the wrong natural fruit or vegetable can harm the human body. In our world today...many of the things we have in our home have chemicals or side effects that stress our immune system, i.e. Care products, cleaning products, clothing, furniture, carpet, etc. Perhaps, if you examined your diet and eliminated processed foods...and avoided the use of products that stressed your system, your Immune System would be better able to protect you.
I think some are saying don't be afraid of the sun and that a reasonable amount of exposure is beneficial. The article makes clear that exposure to the point of burning is not good.
A simple search shows many sunscreen types contain bad chemicals that are absorbed through the skin quickly but the prevailing argument is that skin cancer is worse so use it all the time.
You can still take advantage of shade and light, long sleeved clothing and hats to minimize risk of burning while using less sunscreen or using it only during periods of prolonged direct exposure.
Some have suggested that consuming seed oils has caused a greater sensitivity to the sun and a propensity to burn more easily. Cutting your seed oil intake is suggested by some to reduce the likelihood of burning as well as reducing other negative health benefits. Whether this is so or not, it is unlikely to be a connection made by mainstream public health authorities but might be a beneficial choice regardless (imo)
The article appears to provide balanced information that is usually lacking in public information. The studies cited provide information that could be viewed as troubling and seem to contradict prevailing medical advice. At the end of the day we all have to make our own decisions. Many prefer to default to our expert health authorities, while others appreciate the freedom to weigh information from many places to make our own decisions that sometimes contradict majority mainstream views.
We all have to accept the consequences and maybe sometimes the results might be what they are no matter what you do.
You are knowledgeable and an unusually clear thinker. Maybe a bit too polite? After watching how health authorities show they are all about the money and protecting themselves, not us, for decades, I'd say anyone defaulting to them for health advice is living in la-la-land. I appreciate them for trauma care, maybe a few other things. Health advice? No.
I think there is more to be gained by exercising restraint than letting how we feel inside get the better of us. It has been a great disappointment to come to the realizations that you speak of (to put it mildly).
People have become intellectually lazy and are content to let someone "smarter" than them with the right credentials do their thinking for them.
Many things we have been conditioned to accept with certainty and there is often a perfectly sound, scientific plausible argument supporting a completely different viewpoint. I just feel we need to let people make their choices regarding their health so that we all can be free to make ours. It is important for debate to continue, sticking to facts and proper arguments without letting emotions and logical fallacies derail things.
I dislike hearing "don't identify a problem unless you have the solution". Why not? Isn't that how knowledge expands? Identify problems first, then solve? As far as the alternatives, I don't burn easily, about average. But your solution is simple. I've read dozens of times if you have sensitive skin adjust your exposure accordingly. Get some sun. Physical barriers are best - clothing, hats, maybe an umbrella. Seek shade as much as you can.
Answers to the question about solutions for people with fair skin that I raised. You mentioned some of them. They aren’t secrets. IMO, if Vigilant Fox or Midwestern Doctor want to provide real value, they should point out the problems of our current thinking and offer solutions.
I felt the same. I bought sky and sol’s tallow based sunscreen. None of the bad chemicals. I also stopped wearing sunglasses except when driving. (As I’ve read here the eyes tell the skin to adjust for the sun exposure ). The old wisdom was to gradually adjust exposure. You don’t go out all day the first day of summer - over time you build up the ability to stay out longer.
Shock, shock! I honestly think I have an answer for you, Bob! Please think about simply eating a few bitter apricot seeds … it sounds CRAZY, but trying natural options over drugs is always a smart choice, in my opinion. Let me know if you want to hear more.
Go out in the sun in limited time periods. Don't sit out for the first time in the sun for hours. Eventually gradually increase sun exposure so you tan but not burn.
Very helpful and crucial information, but please write the articles yourself. I can tell these are AI written and AI writing is repetitive, hollow, and without depth and character. You are better than this!
Could optimizing your vitamin D level help lower cancer risk?
Research published by GrassrootsHealth found that women with vitamin D blood levels of 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L) or higher had a 71% lower risk of developing invasive cancer compared with those whose levels were below 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L). The greatest reduction in risk was observed as vitamin D levels increased from approximately 10 to 40 ng/mL.
One of the key takeaways from this research is that vitamin D status matters more than vitamin D intake alone. Since individuals respond differently to the same supplement dose, testing your vitamin D level is the best way to determine whether you've reached an optimal range.
While vitamin D is just one piece of a healthy lifestyle and cannot prevent or treat cancer on its own, maintaining adequate levels may play an important role in supporting long-term health.
Really appreciate you drawing out the distinction between basal cell/squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma. This difference almost never gets mentioned in typical sun-safety advice, and it matters a lot. The point actually worth adding is that the pattern is even more specific than that. Chronic, non-burning sun exposure is associated with lower basal cell carcinoma risk, on the other hand, it's specifically sunburn , intermittent, intense UV bursts that drives melanoma risk. Some research also links adequate vitamin D from sun exposure to lower risk of certain internal cancers like colorectal, breast, and prostate. On the sunscreen study specifically: it only shows a connection, not that sunscreen causes worse outcomes , people who use it regularly may also get more overall sun exposure, or be more likely to get checked and diagnosed in the first place, which is usually the real story behind findings like this. All of which is really the point, isn't it? Sensible, non-burning sun exposure and avoiding sunburn are both protective, so the smartest approach is holding both, not picking a side.
In my opinion this article UNFAIRLY vililfies the dermatologists who specialized in Mohs surgery. The REAL VILLAINS are the Medical Associations who allow Medical Schools to keep providing training in this field, even though it is overcrowded. Some of the best students are encouraged to specialize in Mohs, and only find out after training, that "private equity" is gobbling up practices and pushing their hired derms and Mohs surgeons to find cancer. Reimbursementfor Mohs procedures has decreased in the last eight or so years. Where the MODEL FAILS is Private equity. It should NOT be allowed in Medicine, (nor in Housing). It is model that runs on cutting costs, pushing the doctors to meet certain "production" goals, and removes them if they don't.
A lucrative area you might want to look at is the reimbursement for Colonoscopies, which has been a cash cow for over 30 years.
I take astazanthin and have cut out seed oils, replaced with MCT, omega 3, olive oil, avocado.
Also do a daily 10,000 D3 with 100 K2. Outside a lot. Rarely burn..see my derm doc for yearly screening. He says "Nice seeing you..now go away!" But, I was an OR Nurse for 35+ yrs and saw firsthand how awful melanoma can be..
Just pull up a world map of melanoma deaths. If the sun causes melanoma, one should see more melanoma deaths at the equator than in Russia. This is EXACTLY the opposite of what is shown. Deaths from melanoma increase the farther from the equator that one lives. Maybe all the people get melanoma at the equator and then move to Russia of Finland. LOL
I have been out in the sunshine for hours every day all of my life and I have never ever put on sunscreen or suntan lotion and I have never ever had any skin cancers of any kind.
Imagine that !!!
Believe it or not - a tan protects us from EMF via melanin (a semiconductor):
https://romanshapoval.substack.com/p/skin
Near infrared sunlight increases ATP output 10x. It is also important in mitochondrial melatonin production.
Bad stuff can happen we need a certain amount of sun!! B
Excellent article!
Someone here said to not blame dermatologists but the Medical Schools that keep knocking them out. Excuse me? People enter enter tbe field largely to get rich on unsuspecting clients. Their N bottles are nothing but frozen ATM machines. $80,80,80,80 BAM! Another $500 hr customer. They are ALL GUILTY. Period.
As for the lack of Vit D problem?
https://1yfgk.substack.com/p/africa-is-still-the-smoking-gun
Through this article, The Vigilant Fox is doing exactly what it is accusing the medical community of doing - creating fear to cause a reaction. Most significantly, it creates all of this fear about using sunscreen and over-diagnosis of skin cancer, but it doesn’t offer any solutions. I have fair skin, blue eyes and blond hair. I get sunburned very easily and have had numerous basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas removed via mohs surgery. So, what am I supposed to do - stop using sunscreen, get sunburned and develop more skin cancer that needs to be removed? Or apply sunscreen? If you are going to sound alarms, offer alternatives.
Whatever is put on the skin enters the bloodstream in 30 - 60 seconds...and the chemicals in sunscreen stress the internal organs. Many things people unknowingly do on a daily basis stress the natural immune system and slow down its ability to defend one's body. One's diet especially is a major daily stress...Processed food with its chemicals stress the immune.system with every bite Even the wrong natural fruit or vegetable can harm the human body. In our world today...many of the things we have in our home have chemicals or side effects that stress our immune system, i.e. Care products, cleaning products, clothing, furniture, carpet, etc. Perhaps, if you examined your diet and eliminated processed foods...and avoided the use of products that stressed your system, your Immune System would be better able to protect you.
I think some are saying don't be afraid of the sun and that a reasonable amount of exposure is beneficial. The article makes clear that exposure to the point of burning is not good.
A simple search shows many sunscreen types contain bad chemicals that are absorbed through the skin quickly but the prevailing argument is that skin cancer is worse so use it all the time.
You can still take advantage of shade and light, long sleeved clothing and hats to minimize risk of burning while using less sunscreen or using it only during periods of prolonged direct exposure.
Some have suggested that consuming seed oils has caused a greater sensitivity to the sun and a propensity to burn more easily. Cutting your seed oil intake is suggested by some to reduce the likelihood of burning as well as reducing other negative health benefits. Whether this is so or not, it is unlikely to be a connection made by mainstream public health authorities but might be a beneficial choice regardless (imo)
The article appears to provide balanced information that is usually lacking in public information. The studies cited provide information that could be viewed as troubling and seem to contradict prevailing medical advice. At the end of the day we all have to make our own decisions. Many prefer to default to our expert health authorities, while others appreciate the freedom to weigh information from many places to make our own decisions that sometimes contradict majority mainstream views.
We all have to accept the consequences and maybe sometimes the results might be what they are no matter what you do.
You are knowledgeable and an unusually clear thinker. Maybe a bit too polite? After watching how health authorities show they are all about the money and protecting themselves, not us, for decades, I'd say anyone defaulting to them for health advice is living in la-la-land. I appreciate them for trauma care, maybe a few other things. Health advice? No.
I think there is more to be gained by exercising restraint than letting how we feel inside get the better of us. It has been a great disappointment to come to the realizations that you speak of (to put it mildly).
People have become intellectually lazy and are content to let someone "smarter" than them with the right credentials do their thinking for them.
Many things we have been conditioned to accept with certainty and there is often a perfectly sound, scientific plausible argument supporting a completely different viewpoint. I just feel we need to let people make their choices regarding their health so that we all can be free to make ours. It is important for debate to continue, sticking to facts and proper arguments without letting emotions and logical fallacies derail things.
I dislike hearing "don't identify a problem unless you have the solution". Why not? Isn't that how knowledge expands? Identify problems first, then solve? As far as the alternatives, I don't burn easily, about average. But your solution is simple. I've read dozens of times if you have sensitive skin adjust your exposure accordingly. Get some sun. Physical barriers are best - clothing, hats, maybe an umbrella. Seek shade as much as you can.
You actually made my point. There are several
Answers to the question about solutions for people with fair skin that I raised. You mentioned some of them. They aren’t secrets. IMO, if Vigilant Fox or Midwestern Doctor want to provide real value, they should point out the problems of our current thinking and offer solutions.
I felt the same. I bought sky and sol’s tallow based sunscreen. None of the bad chemicals. I also stopped wearing sunglasses except when driving. (As I’ve read here the eyes tell the skin to adjust for the sun exposure ). The old wisdom was to gradually adjust exposure. You don’t go out all day the first day of summer - over time you build up the ability to stay out longer.
Shock, shock! I honestly think I have an answer for you, Bob! Please think about simply eating a few bitter apricot seeds … it sounds CRAZY, but trying natural options over drugs is always a smart choice, in my opinion. Let me know if you want to hear more.
Eliminating or greatly reducing seed oils will significantly improve your skins ability to resist burning.
Test for Vitamin D deficiency!
Go out in the sun in limited time periods. Don't sit out for the first time in the sun for hours. Eventually gradually increase sun exposure so you tan but not burn.
Very helpful and crucial information, but please write the articles yourself. I can tell these are AI written and AI writing is repetitive, hollow, and without depth and character. You are better than this!
Could optimizing your vitamin D level help lower cancer risk?
Research published by GrassrootsHealth found that women with vitamin D blood levels of 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L) or higher had a 71% lower risk of developing invasive cancer compared with those whose levels were below 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L). The greatest reduction in risk was observed as vitamin D levels increased from approximately 10 to 40 ng/mL.
One of the key takeaways from this research is that vitamin D status matters more than vitamin D intake alone. Since individuals respond differently to the same supplement dose, testing your vitamin D level is the best way to determine whether you've reached an optimal range.
While vitamin D is just one piece of a healthy lifestyle and cannot prevent or treat cancer on its own, maintaining adequate levels may play an important role in supporting long-term health.
📖 Learn more about the research:
https://www.grassrootshealth.net/blog/71-reduction-in-all-cancer-risk/?utm_content=buffer24de5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
💬 Have you had your vitamin D level tested recently? Share your experience in the comments!
#VitaminD #CancerPrevention #HealthResearch #GrassrootsHealth #PreventiveHealth #Wellness #PublicHealth #KnowYourVitaminD #VitaminDTesting
Really appreciate you drawing out the distinction between basal cell/squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma. This difference almost never gets mentioned in typical sun-safety advice, and it matters a lot. The point actually worth adding is that the pattern is even more specific than that. Chronic, non-burning sun exposure is associated with lower basal cell carcinoma risk, on the other hand, it's specifically sunburn , intermittent, intense UV bursts that drives melanoma risk. Some research also links adequate vitamin D from sun exposure to lower risk of certain internal cancers like colorectal, breast, and prostate. On the sunscreen study specifically: it only shows a connection, not that sunscreen causes worse outcomes , people who use it regularly may also get more overall sun exposure, or be more likely to get checked and diagnosed in the first place, which is usually the real story behind findings like this. All of which is really the point, isn't it? Sensible, non-burning sun exposure and avoiding sunburn are both protective, so the smartest approach is holding both, not picking a side.