Suspect screen
According to the Chicken Littles I introduced you to in the last Daily Dose, dermatologists are "worried because their skin cancer patients are younger and younger when first diagnosed."
This leads me to ask: If they are "younger and younger," and the use of skin protection goops has grown enormously, then doesn't that mean they have received less sun exposure than their less protected parents? "I've been in practice 17 years," says Dr. David J. Goldberg, who practices at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. "Seventeen years ago, I saw people in their 50s. Now, I see fair-complected (sic) women in their 30s." Since these women are probably dousing themselves with more sunscreen than their moms did, because of the incessant propaganda about "sun-causes-cancer" from the sunscreen companies and the doctors, maybe there is some link between the screens and the increase in skin cancer. Let me reword that: are the skin screens causing skin cancer? Let's look at this from another angle. If children are getting skin cancer (specifically melanoma) 20 years sooner than their parents, then they have had much less exposure to the sun from the point of view of time. So then, how can the sun be blamed for the increase? Is the treatment causing the disease? Is INSUFFICIENT sunlight the cause? All cancers, including melanoma, are more common in the northern latitudes, which receive much less sun. My advice to you: Forget the anti-sun propaganda. Have a nice day at the beach, don't get sunburned, wear your Bikini - and that cute hat if you want to. **************************** Is seeing believing? Maybe not… It's a commonly held belief in the medical establishment that showing people the effects of their bad habits will help them to quit engaging in the risky behaviors - that information alone can change people's lifestyle. But I, for one, don't buy it… After all, seeing an ever-increasing number of obese American men and women waddling past the window doesn't seem to make us shun those shakes, fries, and McNuggets, does it? Uh-uh. And does showing our middle- and high-school students photographs of black, smoke-damaged lungs in health class keep them from picking up the smokes? I don't think so. Also, has all this talk of condoms over the last decade stopped the spread of sexually transmitted diseases - seeing as how an estimated one in four adults will end up infected? Nope. It's the same story for 40-something adults at risk for heart disease, a new study suggests. Here's what I mean: There's a new test in town that's suddenly all the rage among heart doctors called the EBT (electron beam tomography) - and apparently, it can detect tiny calcium deposits in the arteries that signal an increased risk of heart disease later in life. This should be good news, shouldn't it? People could find out if they're at risk and change their lifestyles in plenty of time to make a difference, right? Wrong. Apparently, even the most negative projections based on this hyper-accurate new scan fall on deaf ears. A recent study of 450 adults between 39 and 45 who'd had EBT performed reported no significant changes in lifestyle or habits a full year later - even when the test had shown significant calcification that indicates an increased risk for heart disease! But wait - this mass complacency IS good news! Why? Because if people were all of a sudden swayed in large numbers by this new test (which, like drugs, is now marketed directly to consumers), they'd ask their doctors "What should I do?" And then those doctors would tell them all the wrong things: Eat less animal fat and protein, eat more grains and sugary fruits, give up the coffee and guzzle water from dawn to dusk, start running marathons and bench-pressing
Buicks… Then they'd REALLY be at risk for heart trouble. A sun worshipper forever,
William Campbell Douglass II, MD | 
