The Skin Cancer Foundation is filing a complaint against MTV for Heavily Promoting Tanning in Jersey Shore.This means that the groundless war against tanning as one of our basic choices for a better health is heating up.
Yesterday, the Skin Cancer Foundation filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against MTV for heavily promoting tanning in the Jersey Shore Program. PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1yDki).
“While experts have long suspected a link between skin cancer and tanning beds, it was not until a few years ago that we had research studies definitively showing a connection. The fact is, tanning beds cause skin cancer.” said Perry Robins , MD, President and Founder of The Skin Cancer Foundation. “As the series progressed over the years, displays of tanning behaviors grew in frequency along with the cast's influence over viewers, to the point where the expression ‘Gym, Tan, Laundry' became a national catchphrase. The repeated and ongoing references to tanning as a harmless activity are dangerous and hazardous to the public's health.”
Well Dr. Robins, you are dead wrong when claiming that “tanning beds cause skin cancer” and I hope that MTV has the financial power and public clout to prove that to the FTC.Before I dive into explaining what I know are the motives behind the FTC filing by the Skin Cancer Foundation and how they are similar to Lance Armstrong, let me make it totally clear that I in no way want to endorse the way of tanning as promoted by the stars in Jersey Shore. If you read my articles on The Tanning Blog and elsewhere you know that I am a promoter of tanning for health (with UV-exposure being the only natural way for us to get vitamin D) and not pushing to make the skin as dark as possible. I am, however, even less enthusiastic over people and organizations who try to use scare-tactics, hidden behind a semi-official health disguise, for their commercial gains and, by doing so, denies us the single best way to a better life with less ailments. The Skin Cancer Foundation is a private initiative and they describe themselves like this:
“Since its founding in 1979, The Skin Cancer Foundation has set the standard for educating the public and the medical profession about skin cancer, its prevention by means of sun protection, the need for early detection, and prompt, effective treatment. It is the only international organization devoted solely to combating the world's most common cancer, now occurring at epidemic levels.”However, if we look at the companies that are funding the Skin Cancer Foundation, we will find 69 corporate sponsors in the “Corporate Council”. Each one of them is contributing at least 10,000 USD yearly to the Foundation and all of them are in the business of making and selling some kind of sun-protection products or remedies for skin-related problems. This means that all of the corporations in the “Corporate Council” are beneficiaries of the sun-scare which the Skin Cancer Foundation is promoting through their filing with the FTC. In fact, there is an increase to “epidemic levels” only in the diagnosed cases of skin cancer and all of this increase is created by the Skin Cancer Foundation and their patrons themselves through the sponsoring of events like the “Melanoma Days”. The truth is that more than 90% of the diagnosed skin cancer cases turn out not to be skin cancer at all. This is a clear indication of that the real purpose of such early detection campaigns is not to cure cancer but rather to recruit new customers for dermatologists’ clinics and for the promoters’ products. As “proof” of that tanning beds cause skin-cancer, the filing refers to the same publications as all sun-scare promoters do, i.e. the decisions by IARC and various studies trying to prove the connection between tanning and skin-cancer. I have since long been an advocate of having those “proof” tried in a court and now, if MTV has the guts (and money) to face up in FTC towards The Skin Cancer Foundation (and their supporters), this might become a reality.
It doesn’t take much effort to discover the real truth and purposes behind the anti-tanning campaign.On my site www.tannersrights.com, I am presenting the full story behind the sun-scare. How it started, who initiated and pays for it and some of their employed lobbyists and commercially motivated scientists. My research is often, by the people involved in the sun-scare and by those brainwashed by the anti-sunlight propaganda, being dubbed as a “Conspiration Theory”. But it is not. Everything in my “theory” are based upon facts.
The most important fact is that the people who claim that any tanning (under the real sun and in sunbeds) causes skin-cancer just can’t be right.The evolutionary history of mankind proves that they are wrong. The human race was born under the sun and developed with the help of sunlight. If the sun-scare mafia was right, how come we are still here do have this debate? How could our ancestors, who spent most of their time in sunlight, survive and even thrive? How did all generations before ours manage without spending that many resources and much money on protecting them against sunshine? And sunbeds are just a way to help us get the evolutionary benefits from sunlight controlled at our will in any place, at any time and in any weather.
An organization within WHO has recently disqualified the type of studies that are used for trying to prove the connection between sunbeds and skin-cancer.All of the studies trying to prove the connection between sunlight/sunbeds and skin-cancer are based upon so called “environmental studies”. This means studies which compare environmental observations of one group of people’s behavior and certain outcomes (often medical cases) with another group without those outcomes (the control group). Such studies are called “case-control studies”. Wikipedia defines a case-control study like this:
“A case-control study is a type of study design used widely, often in epidemiology. It is a type of observational study in which two existing groups differing in outcome are identified and compared on the basis of some supposed causal attribute.”Naturally (since it would be quite unethical to conduct, e.g., randomized controlled trials and try to trigger skin-cancer by burning people), studies that are trying to prove that outdoor and indoor tanning cause skin-cancer are case-control studies or meta-studies of several case-control studies. Actually, and here is an interesting development in the tanning debate which can be used by MTV in their defense, the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the organization under WHO assigned to evaluate the importance of UV-exposure to our health, recently disqualified the usage of case-control studies by stating the following in a letter to the prominent vitamin D researcher William B. Grant:
“ … there is scientiﬁc agreement that ecological studies should not be the basis of recommendations to the public, since any observed associations are easily confounded and therefore potentially unreliable.” [Allinson et al., 2013]To be completely accurate, the studies referred to in the letter from ICNIRP which includes this statement are studies that prove the health benefits of UV-exposure and not the adverse effects. It should however, not be possible for an organization within WHO to apply different standards when it comes to deciding if tanning is good or if it's bad.