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

Rob

If you follow your link it goes to a US Govt website, then if you go to the bottom of the page and click PubMed it will take you to the PubMed abstract that they based their conclusion on.

If you then look at similar articles in PubMed you will find the article I posted.

Shoddy research mate, It is not even an Australian Govt. site you quote.

Sorry I don't have shares in any Pharma Companies.

I am supportive of govt health warning campaigns in principle. But the information needs to be absolutely clear and unbiased. When the "Slip-Slop-Slap" message [is that a WA term, or is that what we all call it?] was first being pushed, it was acknowledged that there was a wide variety of skin types in Australia and, as a consequence, our relatively safe sun exposure times/conditions varied. But for some years now, we all seem to be told something like "9 minutes in the sun and that's your lot!".

I'm very fortunate when it comes to sun tolerance. Born in England of very mixed Caucasian family, almost all of whom had naturally darkish, easily tanned skin, I've never burnt, despite the fact that I've been here for 44 years and lived and worked in some very harsh areas. And, from choice, I practically live in the sun. But, according to the current "one size fits all" skin cancer messages, I'm in virtually the same category as a full blood desert Aborigine on the one hand and a red haired Scotsman on the other.

cont

"I raise this particularly because some studies indicate that because sunscreen contains a number of carcinogens it may actually cause some skin cancers."

I've got a couple of sun protection creams in the house. My lady friend is from Northern Japan, but has the beautiful skin appearance of a person from a more southerly part of the Indian/Pacific Oceans. Despite me telling her how lovely she looks, she tries in vain not to get any darker in the summer. So the creams are here if she wants to use them.

I have a bulk container of Australian Cancer Society cream and a smaller specialist proprietary brand, which is much kinder to a lady's facial skin. I've just checked the ingredients in The Chemical Maze, Your Guide to Food Additives and Cosmetic Ingredients, by Australian author/researcher Bill Statham ISBN 0 9578535 2 1. According to Bill, some of the ingredients are somewhat questionable, but maybe that's virtually unavoidable.

But whatever is in these two creams pales into insignificance compared to the potentially harmful cocktail of chemicals in almost all the personal care products which the ladies are urged to beautify themselves with, by assorted Hollywood personalities who get paid millions to repeat their scripts on TV.

And how about insect repellant. They almost all contain DEET, in fact that's generally regarded as virtually essential. But have a look at this:

http://www.mercola.com/2002/jul/17/insect_repellant.htm

Choice Magazine has also issued a cautionary warning about DEET.

Just something to think about.

Posted by Steve Madden, Friday, 8 December 2006 3:34:33 PM
"Shoddy research mate, It is not even an Australian Govt. site you quote."

Point conceded however I was raising a question rather than presenting research. I dont think that objection is necessarily valid though since presumably sun exposure, sunscreen and skin cancer are all related similarly here and in the US.


"go to the bottom of the page and click PubMed it will take you to the PubMed abstract that they based their conclusion on. If you then look at similar articles in PubMed you will find the article I posted."

While your research may be listed it still doesnt explain why your figures werent used and the other figures were - if your research supports the use of sunscreen it seems strange that they would select research that doesnt unlesss it was better quality research.

"Sorry I don't have shares in any Pharma Companies."

Yeah, I am sorry I dont have any shares in pharma co's too

Hi ProfGlenda,

I hope you see this. I know nothing about this so-called slimming aid, so held off answering in case you got any replies based on actual experience. I did a bit of Googling. but I suppose that you have done that too.

I would say that the general consensus on this type of alleged slimming aid is that we can't expect a major lifestyle change, just by popping a pill. Or, as the well known saying puts it, if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.

I've never had a problem with weight control, but of course some of my friends have/have had and I do know something about it. You are welcome to email me if you wish:

gud4ugud4me@optusnet.com.au