I am perplexed by the tax-payer funded skin cancer prevention campaign pushing us to use sunscreen – a commercial product of the pharmaceutical industry – when from the government’s own website we find the following:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/prevention/skin/healthprofessional

"Squamous Cell Carcinoma
There is inadequate evidence to determine whether the use of sunscreen reduces the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin."

"Basal Cell Carcinoma
There is inadequate evidence to determine whether the use of sunscreen reduces the incidence of basal cell carcinoma of the skin."

"Cutaneous Melanoma
There is inadequate evidence to determine whether the avoidance of sunburns alters the incidence of cutaneous melanoma."

I raise this particularly because some studies indicate that because sunscreen contains a number of carcinogens it may actually cause some skin cancers. Has someone in government got a big portfolio of pharmaceutical shares or what?

Don't rely on seven year old research Rob.

Longitudinal Studies Unit, School of Population Health, University of Queensland and Cancer and Population Studies Unit, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Half of all cancers in the United States are skin cancers. We have previously shown in a 4.5-year randomized controlled trial in an Australian community that squamous cell carcinomas (SCC) but not basal cell carcinomas (BCC) can be prevented by regular sunscreen application to the head, neck, hands, and forearms. Since cessation of the trial, we have followed participants for a further 8 years to evaluate possible latency of preventive effect on BCCs and SCCs. After prolonged follow-up, BCC tumor rates tended to decrease but not significantly in people formerly randomized to daily sunscreen use compared with those not applying sunscreen daily. By contrast, corresponding SCC tumor rates were significantly decreased by almost 40% during the entire follow-up period (rate ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.99). Regular application of sunscreen has prolonged preventive effects on SCC but with no clear benefit in reducing BCC. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(12):2546-8).

Squamous cell carcinomas account for about 20% of non-melanoma skin cancers, (with basal cell carcinomas accounting for about 80%), but are clinically more significant because of their ability to metastasize.

In other words SCC kills people and applying sunscreen reduces the incidence by 40%, case closed :)

Perhaps these "..inadequate evidence..." statements are more for legal indemnity? The best thing is to avoid being exposed to the sun after early morning and before late afternoon, but if you really need to be out there, and can't wear a hat or be covered from head to toe with clothing, sunscreens are the next best choice.

Government advertising is to prove that gonvernments are concerned with the same issue their voters are.

eg
- Water savings campaigns, rather than more dams.

- Violence against women campaigns, when all governments know that the main victims of violence, by a factor of almost ten to one, are actually men

- The sunscreen campaign is the same.

Are you familiar with Liptoprin-RX- I need feedback

Hello,

I need some helpful medical advice from those of you who have used Liptoprin-Rx. I have heard a lot of good feedbacks about this health supplement from others but I need more information about this product from those of you who have actual experience in using it and what were the good and bad effects it had in your body.

All I know that it helps you lose weight and increase your sexual metabolism as well. Thinking about it, the benefit is quite impressive. This is where I need more inputs from actual experience from you guys…

My advance thanks for those who can help contribute your actual experience and feedbacks about this product.

Best of health to all of you!

Posted by Steve Madden, Thursday, 7 December 2006 11:03:18 AM
“Don't rely on seven year old research Rob.”

I took those figures from the government website the day I posted it and it is the government who runs and pays for the campaign so it seems reasonable to assume that is the information they are working on. Also the Slip, Slop, Slap campaign has been running for more than seven years. Could you give me a ref for the research you claim and explain why the government has not adopted your figures? And, of course, do you have any pharmaceutical shares in your portfolio