A topic that has been on my ‘to-do’ list for ages. From ‘Wakeup World’ By Dr. Michelle Kmiec.
Hopefully this throws some light [ 🙂 ] on the subject and reveals some truths.
Readers please comment if you disagree with any of this information.
My apologies to the source blog and author for reproducing the whole article. Hopefully readers will be impressed by this post and check out your blog, linked here.
So we hear the sun is good you… and then the sun is bad for you… and then later the sun is good for you again (or is bad for you now… I just can’t keep it straight).
Isn’t this game of ‘good-bad-good’ played on just about every topic under the sun (terrible pun I know…sorry about that)?
We are a society immersed in fear… fear… and more fear. So the sun being another object of fear isn’t any big surprise.
The notion that we, people that live on the surface of this planet, should cover-up and stay out of the sun as much as possible has always struck a strange cord with me. I could believe something like this if we, in fact, lived underground and were nocturnal cave dwellers; only to come out at night to work and play.
But we are not nocturnal by nature. We sleep at night and are active during the day. Did nature get this wrong? Could this perhaps be nature’s biggest joke on us? Or are we the ones who are confused?
There are reasons why we are active during the day rather than at night, and our physiology proves it:
1. The pineal gland provides melatonin at night and serotonin during the day.
2. We have excellent day vision and poor night vision.
3. Vitamin D is a vitamin-like hormone that our body makes only with direct sun exposure.
4. Not to mention that we are “programmed” to be drawn to the sun. Don’t we all just love that warm sunny day? Doesn’t it do absolute wonders on your state of mind?
Nonetheless, we’ve been told to stay out of the sun, cover up, and lather on the sunscreen on. And aren’t we totally brain washed regarding sunscreen? We are told that if we don’t put on the sunscreen, we’ll get wrinkles and/or get skin cancer. Right? Sound familiar?
And now the latest myth about being out in the sun… it is becoming more dangerous due to the shrinking ozone layer causing the sun rays to be stronger than ever before, of course causing more skin cancer. But that’s another topic all together.
UVA and UVB Rays:
Before we go into more detail, here’s a little refresher on UVB and UVA rays.
UVA rays:
- Passes through window glass.
- Is always present despite changes in altitude or weather.
- Penetrates deep into skin layers
- Totals 5% of the sun’s rays
- Are 20 times more abundant than UVB rays
UVB rays:
- Do not pass through window glass
- Cause the skin to burn and tan
- Are responsible for normal vitamin D production
- Vary in intensity with the weather conditions, altitude, season and time of day
- Totals 0.5% of the sun’s rays
Truth, Pseudo-Truth, and Lies
So let’s take a good look at what is truth, what is pseudo-truth, and what is a flat out lie.
Truth: There has been an increase in skin cancer rates in the United States, as reported by the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
Question: Why would there be an increase of skin cancer despite our use of sunscreen?
Pseudo-truth: While most sunscreens advertise that they protect against UVB rays, they actually do little to protect from UVA rays. There are, however, sunscreens that do protect against UVA rays, such as zinc oxide, titanium dioxide as well as products that contain mexoryl.
Flat out lie: So instead of asking the question as to why skin cancer is on the increase, we continue to slap on the sunscreen or worse, stay out of the sun all together. But is it the sun that is really so dangerous or is there another cause that is conveniently overlooked?
The answer is surprising, and it comes straight from the FDA as well as The American Skin Cancer foundation (believe it or not).
In one word: photosensitivity
The Truth About Sunscreens
A report from the FDA states the following:
The FDA reports that the following list of substances cause photosensitivity or have photo-reactive agents in them, and that chronic Sun exposure while using these chemicals can cause Skin Cancer:
- Medications
- Food additives
- Deodorants
- Antibacterial soaps
- Petroleum products (including Vaseline)
- Antihistamines
- Cold and allergy medicines
- Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) (including aspirin (Amigesic), ibuprofen (Motrin), Aleve (naproxen sodium), celecoxib (Celebrex), diclofenac (Voltaren), etodolac (Lodine))
- Antibiotics (including the tetracyclines and sulfonamides)
- Sunscreens (containing bergamot oil, sandalwood oil, benzophenones, PABA, cinnamates, salicylates, anthranilates, PSBA, mexenone, and oxybenzone)
Know anybody that uses any of these products? You perhaps? Can we really say that only the sun that causes skin cancer?
Isn’t it interesting there are no warning labels on any of these products? Especially sunscreens?!? Makes you wonder doesn’t it? But wait… it gets better.
The FDA states, in the same report, that chronic exposure to photo-reactive chemicals (like those listed above) can cause:
- Premature skin aging: Due to the sun…. or chemicals?
- Stronger allergic reactions: Why are human beings seemingly allergic to Earth?
- Cataracts: Visual disorders?
- Blood vessel damage: Cardiovascular Disorders?
- Weakened immune system: Autoimmune Disorders?
- Skin cancer: Is this really a surprise?
You don’t have to be a scientist to put some logic to the test here: Sunscreens cause photosensitivity, and those with photosensitivity are more likely to develop cancer than those with “normal” skin.
Referring to the FDA’s report on the substances that cause photosensitivity, an article in Science Daily ‘Medications May Increase Sensitivity to Sunlight‘ reported:
“Though these drugs do not directly increase the risk of skin cancer, serious sunburns, particularly in children, have been associated with an increased incidence of skin cancers later in life”
If you take another look at that list, we are talking about a lot more than just drugs! Food additives, deodorants and soaps all appear on that list.
It amazes me that we continue to be told that the solution to this problem is to simply put on sunscreen! But wait, oops… sunscreen is on that list too!
Why aren’t there warning labels on the sunscreen informing us that it can cause photosensitivity and cancer? Sounds a little counter-productive to me.
Sun Exposure
Flat out lie: Those who spend more time in the sun are more likely to get skin cancer. Thus, the reason it is so important to cover up and stay out of the sun as much as possible.
A must read is the latest report out of the United Kingdom, “Sunlight Robbery”. An excerpt states the following [I have bolded areas for emphasis]:
“…there are real doubts about the way in which sun exposure causes melanoma. Adults who work outdoors and children who play outdoors are regularly exposed to the sun and are less likely to develop melanoma than those who work or play more indoors. While people who have irregular exposure to the sun and those who recall being sunburnt have a higher risk of melanoma, especially if they have a fair skin type. Occasional exposure of skin to sunlight appears to carry the greatest risk of melanoma, while regular exposure of skin to sunlight appears to protect against melanoma, probably because it provides higher levels of vitamin D which are protective against cancer in general.”
Of course, sunscreen does a great job of protecting us from UVB rays, but there is a problem. It’s the UVB rays that our body needs for vitamin D production. And if Vitamin D is protective against cancer… well…
So What Are We To Do?
Firstly, use natural alternatives of the products listed in the FDA report.
Sure, there are some substances in nature that cause photosensitivity as well. But if the only interest of the FDA, and other groups such as The American Skin Cancer Foundation, is to protect the general public, then why aren’t they looking at the chemical ingredients that are in the products which are known to cause photosensitivity? Why isn’t more interest being given to alternative treatments that could prevent these photosensitive reactions from medications? Not to mention all the other side-effects?
Instead, mainstream science stands steadfast in its ideology against alternative treatments. Puzzling, isn’t it?
Previous articles by Dr. Michelle:
- “Blame It On Your Genes”: the Money-Making Myth of Modern Medicine
- Illness vs. Industry: Will Scientists Ever Find a “Cure” for Cancer?
- Antipsychotics for ADHD? There is Something Wrong with Our Medical Establishment
- Exposed: Monsanto’s Mission To Pharmaceutically “Enhance” GMO Foods
About the author:
Dr. Michelle Kmiec is a licensed chiropractor who also holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Human Biology. She is life-long athlete who after curing herself 100% naturally from autoimmune neurological symptoms and anxiety, became an avid nutrition health researcher/promoter, author of Healthcare Freedom Revolution: Exposing the Lies, Deceit and Greed of the Medical Profession, and Founder of the website Online Holistic Health. You can follow Online Holistic Health on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.
Related articles
- How Much Do You Know About Sunscreen? (regionalallianceforhealthyschools.wordpress.com)
- Sunscreen: To Use Or Not To Use? (charlotte.cbslocal.com)
The GOLDEN RULE 
Reblogged this on Oyia Brown.
Reblogged this on Nectar of Life and commented:
Do you know what you’re putting on your body?
Little mention of the ozone layer in upper atmosphere. How the destruction of it, allows harmful rays to penetrate.
I stopped wearing sunscreen years ago. On my own reasoning, similar to this article. I just do not lie in the sun, avoid prolonged exposure by wearing loose cotton clothing, hats and shades. It’s not rocket science?
Although those rockets and high-flying military jets punching through ozone layer are likely destroying that layer? Along with those fluro-carbons [CFC’s] still out there, being used in many countries.
However really enjoyed the blog and the sound logic attached to it …….. Thanks!!
Thanks Jamie.
A bit lazy in not following through on the ozone layer.
The last I recollect was that it varies a fair bit, but seemed to have restored itself substantially over the years.
Is it reducing? If so in which areas?
I also recollect someone claiming that the CFC’s were not really a major issue, but the article may not be true and is not within my reach.
The ozone layer is maybe a bit better since the 1980’s? But it is still in evidence and as a whole the layer varies.
Cheers Jamie!
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Is_the_ozone_layer_on_the_road_to_recovery
No reason for this link, other than I’ve liked it for 30+ years …..
Hi Jamie, Thanks for your continuing support and encouragement.
There is a problem with your inserted videos.
This and the previous 2 on earlier comments show up as “this video does not exist” when the play button is actioned.
Any ideas?
Regards, Ken.
Hi Ken,
Yikes no? I played it this morning from my favourites folder on my youtube channel. – hirundine username. I would not be surprised regarding the area, in which the link work? ….. Sorry! I’ll try to remember not to do that in future.
Cheers
Jamie
————–
Following on about video not playing:
I wonder if some Utube videos are not set up to play outside the US Canada area?
Thanks for every other informative site. Where else may I am getting that kind of information
written in such a perfect means? I’ve a challenge that I’m simply now
working on, and I’ve been on the look out for such information.
Thank You!
I was lucky to find this particular article.
Glad you like it.
I am prompted to add a comment of my own, inspired by a family member firstly mentioning a news article in which doctors were taking chiropractors to task for making medical statements about which doctors do not agree.
After my above article was read, that issue, of course, was re-raised.
In this particular case, the article’s author is “Dr. Michelle Kmiec is a licensed chiropractor who also holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Human Biology.”
It seems to me that her qualifications indicate a high degree of understanding of the human body’s operation and responses to applied pharmaceuticals and lotions etc.
However nobody is perfect, so, as I suggested in my post, reader response is welcome if the authenticity of the article is considered in any way dubious.
More to the point, the generalization of chiropractors not being appropriate persons to make medical assessments and to criticize mainstream doctors’ methods and theories is itself unwarranted and needs to be taken on case by case merits. (IMHO).
The main thrust here is that doctors are trained to follow mainstream medical information and advice and are not prone to think “outside the zone”. Nor do they have much spare time to diversify their interests. They also have a strong connection to their industry and are reluctant to openly criticize each other or the “system”. This adherence to protocol, even when much evidence of an issue arises, is clearly demonstrated in many cases.
Chiropractors, and other “alternative” medical practitioners seem to have more open minds and do not get into trouble with their peers if making their thoughts public.
Bottom line, which occurs frequently on this blog, is, “the facts, truth and impartial information, together with commonsense, are what the public need. The messenger is simply the information source. Personal opinion is subject to personal bias, but Interpretation of technical information should be made independently of the source. The message is the important thing!
In general, information from an unreliable or unknown source may well need close scrutiny, but must still be considered in its own right. On the other side of the coin, blind faith in even the most qualified, experienced and respected “messenger” is sometimes misplaced.
Closed minds, vested interests, peer pressure and agendas clearly sometimes result in biassed, inaccurate or incorrect information being published and wrongly accepted as “gospel truths”.
Once again, please comment if you feel the need.