Thread: Scientists reverse stance on sun and cancer: Now they admit sunlight can prevent skin

Jesus mother fucking god damn Christ! I hate Journalist! I fucking hate'em!

lay off the fucking caffeine dude.

Originally Posted by juggernaut

lay off the fucking caffeine dude.

Sure, I know I over react to things, but for fuck's sake. "Scientists" isn't a singular noun. I am sick and tired of Journalist using ambiguous language to mislead or outright lie about what it is they are writing about. There is no organizations called "Scientist" or "Doctors" These shithead journalist read over one damn near irrelevant publication, and then use titles like "Scientist now say...bla bla bla" Which fucking scientist? Which doctors and researchers are putting their reputation on the line to say that limited exposure to UV light causes a host of diseases? How much UV exposure is limited? How much UV exposure is considered moderate? a couple thousand retards will read this article, believe it, then go repeated it to other people in the public causing more confusion.

Oh yeah, at least one of their sources for the article is actually just a company selling shit.

ok first of all the science behind ultraviolet radiation causing DNA damage and skin cancer is still solid.

That's why skin cancer is rampant in australia and not so much in the eskimos.( who probably should be the most vitamin d deficient)

They are linking low vitamin d to cancers, and there is a link, but like anything else in medicine an association may not be a cause. It's true that the best way to get vitamin d is through sunlight, it takes 22 glasses of milk to equal 1 hour of sunlight. However, like anything else , too much of a good thing is too much, and that applies to sunlight.

I wish I could voice how we doctors hate how the media interprets medical science for us but KEJU did a pretty good job.

as for this article it is true that low vitamin d levels confers worse prognosis for melanoma patients but what they don't tell you is that the study group had prior skin cancers and was told to avoid the sun already, so they may have had low levels just due to avoiding sun but the low vitamin d may not have been the cause.

Bandaidwoman, what kind of doctor are you?

I'm an internal medicine specialist, I'm an Intensivist ( take care of ICU patients for other specialties) and also do some outpatient, and am researching LADA or Type 1.5 diabetes and I am also a associate professor teaching clinical medicine and do some didactic lectures in chemistry etc.

Originally Posted by bandaidwoman

I'm an internal medicine specialist, I'm an Intensivist ( take care of ICU patients for other specialties) and also do some outpatient, and am researching LADA or Type 1.5 diabetes and I am also a associate professor teaching clinical medicine and do some didactic lectures in chemistry etc.

I'd say you have better credentials than the journalist now...don't you think???

It's not to say all doctors know how to interpret scientific information. But most of us do have the requisite skills to critically evaluate the medical literature and the attendant clinical significance. In fact, this type of thinking is reinforced duiring clinical rounds and grand rounds on a daily basis,otherwise, almost everything we learned information wise in medical school is on the internet. Most ground-breakihg studies are usually peer-reviewed, with accompanying editorials from renowed experts who can give us further insights into a particular subject. Many of us where scientists but in fields that did not have as many variables ( analytical chemistry) and so we have to change how we approach literature dealing with complex biological systems with so many variables ( both physically, socially, funding bias etc.)

For those burdened by the demands of practice, with little time to read may depend more on clincial summaries and editorial comments than on in-depth reading of the entire articles. This is compounded by the fact that there are so many medical journals out there, all bidding for our attention.

Nevertheless, we don’t have to be “scientists" to practice medicine well. There are so many ways to acquire important clinical information apart from reading medical journals.

Those of us who teach , we have to keep abreast and clinically critique the "newest" findings that are sometimes seemingly contradictory.

Everything in moderation.

Whats funny is people put on all kinds of chemical blends ( sun block) when they go out in the sun.....fuck that, so many chemicals just can not be good.

I limit my sun time here in Arizona, if I go to the pool it is before 10am or after 3pm, and I am only in the sun for about 20 min. The idea that the sun is bad but chemical blends are good is beyond laughable.

Originally Posted by GeorgeForemanRules

Everything in moderation.

^This.

Originally Posted by GeorgeForemanRules

Everything in moderation except gay sex with large African mens.

Whats funny is people put on all kinds of chemical blends ( sun block) when they go out in the sun.....fuck that, so many chemicals just can not be good.

I limit my sun time here in Arizona, if I go to the pool it is before 10am or after 3pm, and I am only in the sun for about 20 min. The idea that the sun is bad but chemical blends are good is beyond laughable.

Very interesting post...

Originally Posted by heavyiron

Very interesting post...

I see what you did and I approve 100%.